Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Wireless bonus rules suck.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 14 2013, 08:41 PM
Wireless bonus rules suck. Lets write the tacnet rules they should have used. Then we can submit them as a replacement. And use them instead. And give Deckers something they can actually do and something that would actually be worth the risk.
Posted by: Slide Jul 14 2013, 08:43 PM
I'm on board. so would a tacnet basically count as its on grid? sorta like a LAN as opposed to the internet?
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 14 2013, 09:11 PM
I think so. With the Deckers Deck acting as the Router/firewall.
The Decker would act as Burk did in aliens coordinating the team. and protecting the tacnet from intruders.
Posted by: Slide Jul 14 2013, 09:28 PM
ok, so hes part of what I propose then, for certine bonuses like the smartgun bonuses (the book discribes it as up to the second weather conditions) you need some sort of sensors for the area to help determine the ambiant conditions. As well as running a Tacnet program on the deck that counts against the max programs for the deck. I mean computing dynamic events with thousands of variables in real time takes a ton of processing power.
Posted by: Slide Jul 14 2013, 09:47 PM
Also with having tacnet as a program allows you to do things like complex action data processing+Smallunit Tactics[Tacnet Program] each hit increases the inititive of all plugged into the net by one up to your Tacnet Rating. If you don't think an extra 3 or 4 to inititive is worth it, just remember Han Shot first.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 14 2013, 11:59 PM
They also allow the Decker to make perception checks in addition to the individuals to notice things thus allowing the decker to point out changes in situations.
The Decker likely pulls in relevant info from their connection to the net.
I kind of imagine the Decker playing this role
http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4/features/commander-mode
Posted by: RHat Jul 15 2013, 12:46 AM
... You do understand that they didn't just use tacnets for good reason, right? Tacnets utterly fail to meet the design goals that led to wireless bonuses.
Posted by: Slide Jul 15 2013, 01:04 AM
Sweet, say something useful now.
Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 15 2013, 01:07 AM
Bring back skinlinks?
Posted by: RHat Jul 15 2013, 01:16 AM
I like the concept, but I'm just saying that it doesn't act as a replacement. With that in mind, the question becomes what the design goal of these rules should be.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 15 2013, 03:22 AM
The stated design goal is to make deckers useful. Wireless bonuses fail at doing that and make no sense. If I can just turn off my wireless you have not actually made deckers useful.
A tacnet if designed right can accomplish that goal. Especially if you write things such that having a tacnet is worth the risk. Or vital to the success of the mission. And the Deckers runs the tacnet. Giving that player something to do.
Posted by: RHat Jul 15 2013, 03:46 AM
A tacnet if designed right can accomplish that goal. Especially if you write things such that having a tacnet is worth the risk. Or vital to the success of the mission. And the Deckers runs the tacnet. Giving that player something to do.
The actual role of wireless bonuses is a little more complicated than that. The wireless bonuses, some of which make sense and some of which don't, do several things. First, they improve player agency by making having wireless on or off an actual DECISION. Second, they allow combat hacking to exist while keeping things nice and simple (it's worth pointing out that under the current structure, the decker is quite able to kill drones if need be). Third, they are generalizable to pretty much all situations save for a less than common handful. Fourth, they provide a direct reason for the decker to be present. Fifth, it's bound to the decker directly rather than being a function of the other people on the team. Tacnet rules simply cannot accomplish all of this - they do nothing for agency because you can't let there be very much reason not to use it (otherwise, it fails in other goals immediately), they involve the decker helping others do something rather than directly acting (the Face suffers from this to a limited extent as well, but that's inevitable), it's generalizable only under a number of conditions any one of which could easily turn out to be false, it would be very difficult to write these rules such that they work yet really don't work remotely, and the tacnet is team bound rather than character bound.
Posted by: Falconer Jul 15 2013, 03:58 AM
Rhat cheer leads for a lot of the freelancers/line dev who made this you need to understand.
Personally Slide, I'm all for this. It very closely mirrors an idea I had as well and my assertions in other threads that making tacnets fully integrated in the core rules... instead of a stupidly good bonus system in a splatbook would have been the correct way to do this.
I wish they had done something more akin to... a smartgun enhances the equipment limit by 2. If subscribed as part of a tacnet it also provides 2 bonus dice. Not simply 'connected to the wired' (Lain reference for those who don't get it).
Things like bonus dice for perception bonus for image-enhancement or attention co-processor or the like make a lot more sense if integrated as part of a sensor awareness net as well. Instead we'll probably see the tacnet make a re-emergence as another stupidly bloated bonus dice pool yet again.
Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 15 2013, 04:00 AM
I'd love to see the face of the street sam that gets his brand new Alpha grade Wired Reflexes 2 implant bricked by a decker first run out...
Posted by: RHat Jul 15 2013, 04:02 AM
You realize that casting aspersions upon someone is simply a way of demonstrating that you have no counterargument, yes?
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 15 2013, 04:55 AM
No wireless Bonuses do not do all of that.
They are not a direct reason to have a decker present. I turn my wireless off. Boom no need for a decker.
Tacnet rules on the other hand can accomplish all of this and more. If written with the intend that the Decker is the guy running your tac net. In fact by using tacnet rules you give reason to have a second decker in the party whose job is to crack the corporate tacnet. The current implementation of wireless Bonuses is in a word. Stupid. They do not make Deckers more useful. they in fact do not benefit the Decker at all.
And if you are not going to contribute to this discussion please go. Your comments are off topic. The topic is writing tacnet rules that do make deckers useful unlike the current rules.
Posted by: RHat Jul 15 2013, 05:37 AM
They are not a direct reason to have a decker present. I turn my wireless off. Boom no need for a decker.
Tacnet rules on the other hand can accomplish all of this and more. If written with the intend that the Decker is the guy running your tac net. In fact by using tacnet rules you give reason to have a second decker in the party whose job is to crack the corporate tacnet. The current implementation of wireless Bonuses is in a word. Stupid. They do not make Deckers more useful. they in fact do not benefit the Decker at all.
And if you are not going to contribute to this discussion please go. Your comments are off topic. The topic is writing tacnet rules that do make deckers useful unlike the current rules.
... So, turning off your wireless means that no one else is going to want the bonuses? I'd say, in setting, the majority of opponents would go for the bonus.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 15 2013, 05:50 AM
Again this topic is for discussing the creation of Tac Net rules that will actually make Deckers useful. Keep this up and I report you. Your comments are off topic.
Posted by: RHat Jul 15 2013, 06:11 AM
Well, I can see a couple of challenges here: First, ideally the bonuses shouldn't tread the same ground as the Leadership bonuses, but something like a teamwork test to team members defensive rolls as an interrupt would be interesting.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 15 2013, 06:19 AM
i would treat Tac net rules with others as leaders as giving bonus dice to leadership same as teamwork rules do.
Posted by: RHat Jul 15 2013, 06:26 AM
Creating a feedback situation between the two isn't a bad idea, but a tacnet should have bonuses distinct from that (that way, you don't get into a situation where the presence of one diminishes the value of the other). Bonuses to Perception, indirect fire, defense... There's a lot of space to work with there.
Posted by: Slide Jul 15 2013, 06:50 AM
Ok, yes leadership does give initiative bonuses. What I was looking at with tacnet is honestly pretty similar to that, except the reasoning is that by the decker feeding purtinat info to the team in real time they would be able to react faster and more efficiently to changing situations.
Now while I do like the idea of a tacnet, I don't belive it really solves the issue of most wireless bonuses being illogical or not worth having wireless. i.e. smuggling or fingertip compartments being wireless to remove things as a free action. You shouldn't broadcast that you have a smuggling compartment. Needing wireless to tell what your air tank is at even if you have cyber eyes and DNI. The biggest problem that I see with the wireless thing is how much would I actually miss the bonuses if I didn't have them. If it would cripple me then thats pretty stupid. Why would I have a piece of cyberware that is only functional via internet. Thats like when I was on a submarine and wanted to play SCII but no.... Bioware says i need a fucking internet conection (nerd rage). But the problem that we really have with wireless bonuses is that most of them you can fully function without, and turning them off is unlikely to be a real handicap in a fight or any other situation.
Those are separate issues, and I think that they should all be looked at on an individual scale. Now as far as a tacnet goes, it should have risk/reward that would suite a combat situation. What happens if a hacker can infiltrate your Tacnet? what happens if you get bad info, If a decker is wirelessly connected to every piece of gear that you have and some one drops the Tacnet, what happens to all that gear? does it just return to a normal function, or would much of it have a chance that it needs to "reboot"
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 15 2013, 07:17 AM
I agree.
I think Tacnets should be versatile. They should also provide overwatch. Giving the leader better info to base his tactics on. Give the Decker small unit tactics and they can be a back up/alt tactician.
Have a second decker and they can hack the opposition Tacnet and feed it's data into your tacnet. Giving you even better data.
How would you handle
Perception
Indirect Fire
Defense
tactical maneuvering(IE flanking etc.)
How different sensor systems feed into the tacnet.
How do riggers and drones feed into and recieve info from the tacnet.
how do the Street samurai pick up and give info to the net?
How do your magical types feed in info and pull out info?
Hacking a tacnet
Deckers defending their tacnet
Deckers attacking a tacnet
What can be done with a compromised tacnet
Anything I have not thought of?
Posted by: Medicineman Jul 15 2013, 07:22 AM
or the whole Group of Runners that tried to infiltrate a Megacorp and got bricked from a dozen Corpdeckers & another Dozen Agents/ICs.
BtT
A Decker could write/program Agents to protect each TacNet Member
With a dozen Dances
Medicineman
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 15 2013, 04:39 PM
I Disagree... They did not use Tacnets because they were trying to ADD ADDITIONAL vulnerabilities that the Decker could screw with. A Task that was approached, and executed, poorly.
Posted by: Neurosis Jul 15 2013, 05:26 PM
I was going to make "This thread, only better" basically. Better as in clearly establishing mission parameters and design goals up front. Maybe I still will. Anyway:
Design Goal:
* Give deckers/hackers "hacking" action options in combat that can have just as meaningful an effect on an enemy combatant as shooting them with a gun or hitting them with a spell, and can be used on any enemy combatant that is at all reliant on technology.
Without the up-front agreement to that design goal, I don't see a productive discussion happening. Because some people just hate wireless bonuses, but other people also hate the idea of hackers being able to "hack" other characters in combat with the same effectiveness as firing an Ares Predator, casting a lightning bolt, casting control thoughts, casting trid phantasm, and so on. I will gladly discuss alternatives to meet the above design goal with people who hate wireless bonuses (not that such a discussion will result in anything official), but people in the latter group have no place in this discussion, and I'm not willing to let them in the doors, so to speak. People who hate wireless bonuses might be entirely reasonable people, but as far as I'm concerned, people who hate the idea of a hacker "hacking" a group of characters via their tacnet as efficiently as a mage can cast chaotic world cannot be reasoned with. They are not interested in playing the Shadowrun I love. They want to play MagicRun with some samurai tacked on.
I am very interested in "the tacnet rules they should have used", especially if those rules allow you as a hacker to compromise a TacNet, create false images and AROs, erase yourself from someone's vision or shut down their eyes entirely, etcetera. But before we can discuss "the tacnet rules they should have used" we (and by we I actually mean you in this case) need to come to a consensus on design goals.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 15 2013, 06:31 PM
Design Goal:
* Give deckers/hackers "hacking" action options in combat that can have just as meaningful an effect on an enemy combatant as shooting them with a gun or hitting them with a spell, and can be used on any enemy combatant that is at all reliant on technology.
Problem is - I can turn off my wireless, run dark, and the Decker is completely unable to affect me in combat in the way that the above design goal was implemented. The fact that the current online bonuses are haphazard and mostly unnecessary makes it even worse. Now, they the bonuses had been thought out better, and actually made some sense, this topic would never have exploded as it did.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 15 2013, 07:18 PM
I want the bonuses to be good enough that not running one would be silly. Reliable enough that people trust what they say. Yet hackable enough that good deckers can hack them and wreak havoc. I want deckers to be able to defend them. The Bonuses should be easy for the GM to flip to disads when a tacnet is compromised. A tacnet should not be a GM book keeping nightmare.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 16 2013, 04:20 AM
So nothing?
Posted by: Lurker37 Jul 16 2013, 05:30 AM
As I see it, the biggest failure of the design goal is that it only gives the decker something to do if the opposition has cyberware. The decker is still SOL in a plotline where the main threat is an insect spirit hive, a street gang, a NAN tribe that eschews cyberware, vampires, paranormal critters...
Not every run is against a corporate installation.
The second biggest problem I can see is that the setting makes it very clear that there are hostile deckers that are not only able to do the same to PCs, but would be actively encouraged to do so by their superiors. So while the benefit to a PC decker is situational, the threat to PCs with cyberware is constant.
It seems to me that the goal should have been something that gave a decker more options regardless of the type of opposition, without making cyberware a less optimal choice for players.
I can only think of a couple of options here, but each has drawbacks:
1) There are no wireless bonuses, but a good decker can provide equivalent benefits by sourcing feeds from the matrix that current wireless bonuses assume the devices can locate, interpret and incorporate on their own.
Main issues: Passive buff role (cf D&D Bards), only applies if a member of your team uses cyberware (which sucks if you have a mage, and adept, a technomancer and a high-essence face).
2) In a world where built in obsolescence is a product feature, have plenty of abandonware still around that is functional, so that even the have-nots can scavenge a couple of secondhand turrets, most corners have cameras( even if the networks are not always monitored), and even the sewers have decommissioned-but-not-deconstructed 'vermin control measures'. Give the GMs lots and lots of suggestions to ensure that no matter where a fight goes down, there is always, always something in the environment that a decker can turn to their advantage.
Main issue: More work for the GM, requires more imagination/suspension of disbelief in some environments.
Neither of these are great ideas, but hopefully they illustrate the sort of thing I'm talking about - an option that is always available no matter who you're teamed with and what sort of opposition you are up against.
Posted by: RHat Jul 16 2013, 05:38 AM
This is not true. In order to be hacker-immune, the enemy in question would have to eschew ALL tech or go completely EM-dark. Para-critters would be an issue for this, but as for the rest (insects might have some of the flesh or hybrid forms using gear, for example)... It is true that the hacker's contribution gets less substantive as the enemy gets less tech-sophisticated, but that's an issue that will ALWAYS exist for options that involve the hacker doing things TO the enemy, which is part of the design goal Neurosis outlined.
And deckers actually on site with the security response would be rare.
Posted by: cndblank Jul 16 2013, 07:44 AM
I'd like to know what the SOP is for SWAT and Corporate High Threat Response teams.
What gear and tactics do they use to keep from having their cyberware or gear hacked?
I figure it would be close to military SOP.
Posted by: cndblank Jul 16 2013, 07:45 AM
Also 30 seconds of Jamming will keep most hackers from functioning unless they jack in to a hardline.
And even then they are not going to be hacking any of the enemies cyberware or gear.
Posted by: Blade Jul 16 2013, 08:55 AM
My modest proposal, for a simple system:
- We assume that as soon as there's a connection, the hacker can exploit it (no matter if it's supposed to be one way only, or if it's only supposed to broadcast one kind of signal and stuff like that, there's always a security hole somewhere)
- Each character decides for a set of basic rules for the most common use cases (like "I have a connection to share my sensor feeds with my team" or "my dermal plating has no external connection") and chooses a "paranoia" rating for the rest, from 0 (completely open) to 6 (completely closed).
- Every time the character wants to do something that would require an external connection (sharing the data from one of his sensor (from the cyber-eyes to the biomonitor), letting one of his teammate control his cyberarm or his injector, etc), if that's not part of this preset list he rolls a dice. If the result is more than the paranoia rating, it's possible. If it's lower, he can't do it unless he lowers his paranoia rating (simple action, due to the need for a secure validation mechanism that can't be done in an auto action).
- Likewise, when someone wants to hack a piece of ware from that character, he finds a reason why it could have a connection, then do the same test to check if the connection is indeed open or not.
I'd also add that a hacker's combat actions could be done on the environment rather than on the characters: switching the lights on or off, getting the maintenance drone in the way of the opposition, opening and closing doors, etc.
Posted by: RHat Jul 16 2013, 08:59 AM
The existing system covers for a lot of that, if you're clever - like bricking a lock so that you can't be followed.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 16 2013, 08:59 AM
That is what I like about the tacnet idea. You could be buffing your team when the opposition has nothing to hack. Making your team work more efficiently instead of debuffing the enemy tacnet.
can a simsense rig allow others to see what you see astrally? because that would be something cool a magic character can contribute to the tacnet allowing the leader to coordinate the magic resources. A tacnet should be able to be its own self contained network and operate regardless of whether there is a matrix to connect to.
Posted by: Psikerlord Jul 17 2013, 03:18 AM
I like the wireless bonus rules, I'm very glad they were introduced. They are just a way of getting a player to make a meaningful choice about more bonus at the risk of that gear being hacked. Deckers have plenty they can do anyway even without these wireless bonuses, but it's nice to try and encourage more options/risks for all concerned.
As for tacnet rules, doubtless they will appear in a splatbook soon. In the meantime PCs can have an informal tacnet anyway with their commlinks and other bits and pieces linked, and the DM can make on the spot rulings about what bonuses/penalties might flow from that.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 17 2013, 05:38 AM
As for tacnet rules, doubtless they will appear in a splatbook soon. In the meantime PCs can have an informal tacnet anyway with their commlinks and other bits and pieces linked, and the DM can make on the spot rulings about what bonuses/penalties might flow from that.
then why are you posting here? Go to the other threads on the wireless bonuses and why they suck. This is not the topic for that discussion. this is the topic for coming up with tacnet rules.
Posted by: cndblank Jul 17 2013, 02:40 PM
"We assume that as soon as there's a connection, the hacker can exploit it (no matter if it's supposed to be one way only, or if it's only supposed to broadcast one kind of signal and stuff like that, there's always a security hole somewhere)"
Umm, No. At least on the fly during combat.
Yes there are always security holes somewhere, no you can't find it in 20 seconds while being shot at.
Lets give the GM a few things to make the decker/technomancer work for it.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 17 2013, 10:37 PM
I think Tacnets should be versatile. They should also provide overwatch. Giving the leader better info to base his tactics on. Give the Decker small unit tactics and they can be a back up/alt tactician.
Have a second decker and they can hack the opposition Tacnet and feed it's data into your tacnet. Giving you even better data.
How would you handle
Perception
Indirect Fire
Defense
tactical maneuvering(IE flanking etc.)
How different sensor systems feed into the tacnet.
How do riggers and drones feed into and recieve info from the tacnet.
how do the Street samurai pick up and give info to the net?
How do your magical types feed in info and pull out info?
Hacking a tacnet
Deckers defending their tacnet
Deckers attacking a tacnet
What can be done with a compromised tacnet
Anything I have not thought of?
I was hoping to get some of this filled in.
any thoughts?Posted by: Falconer Jul 17 2013, 10:53 PM
Shadow most likely because I don't like making up house rules til I've had a chance to play with the existent rules and figure out what is good/bad/ugly. I've only seen a glimpse of the rulebook a few times on friends pads.
But here is what I'd focus on.
The rules for tacnets in unwired are more or less a slapdash affair as well. It basically comes down to GM discretion for a lot of poorly worded bits & mechanics. What exactly qualifies for drones is ambiguous for example. Even the list of 'benefits' gives a big list of them... then tells the GM to pick the ones he thinks are apt. While the powergamers take this to mean any and all of them (causing another source of argument).
Rather than a generic monster bonus.
Replace the 'matrix bonuses' with more meaningful line item tacnet bonuses I'd say. Don't make tacnets some monstrous add on... but tightly integrate them into the core rules.
Give a reason why these devices are operating and talking to the group. Give the decker/face/somenoe a prime role in operating it. Example: if sensors are subsctibed (and their icon shows up in the matrix) they could be used to mark a target giving a dice bonus due to the enhanced target lock-on. Same goes for things like the smartguns... without a net... they give accuracy bonus... with access to the net they give their dice bonus as well.
Another idea is to have the tacnet have a 'pool' of dice. It's operator controls. By doing some actions he can add more dice. By doing others he can hand-out one time dice bonuses to other players/members of the group. You could similarly assign a point value to subscribing devices for these kinds of actions.
EG: subscribing the internal air tank allows tacnet members to look-up the air status of that member (he should know his own status without this! stupid matrix bonus rules!). it could also give say a minor 1 point bonus towards group coordination or situational awareness.
An example of different kinds of pools I can think of. offensive (smartguns, etc.), sensors (perception, surprise..), group status (health monitors, cyberware status, etc.). That's probably a good first cut. Offensive pool is pretty straight forward hand it out on offense. Sensors... again mostly for perception type stuff. Group status... help with things like first-aid tests. Like the last one not all of them need be or should be combat related.
A good example... UWB radar... you'd need to subscribe it to a tacnet in order to give others it's targetting bonuses through walls and the like.
Another problem which crops up... now exactly does a decker interact with an enemy tacnet or enhance the operation of his own? (Half the assumption i make is that there will be two primary characters operating this... the decker, and the face. since if the hacker needs things to do in combat, so should the face and i'm not sold on the 'leadership' skill).
Posted by: quentra Jul 17 2013, 10:55 PM
I'm still thinking of something that's more interesting than a flat DP bonus, and more creative than just 'send each other AROs'. Give me some time!
Posted by: CrystalBlue Jul 17 2013, 11:12 PM
Arrggg....I want to ask legitimate questions, but I think I should just avoid Dumpshock for the new few months until this stuff cools down.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 18 2013, 04:51 AM
No... go kick your muse and produce
Posted by: phlapjack77 Jul 18 2013, 04:56 AM
Just make sure your ideas don't fall into the "D&D4 bonuses that are pure gamist crap" category (I'm looking at you, Leadership skill!)
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 05:58 PM
This makes TacNets useful while keeping them abstract and relatively simple, and encourages the subscription of more devices (although this would require a list of devices that can contribute to a TacNet).
This also makes limits more relevant, by increasing the potential dice pool by 2.
Your opinion?
Posted by: cryptoknight Jul 18 2013, 07:16 PM
This also makes limits more relevant, by increasing the potential dice pool by 2.
This sounds good... then hacking the tacnet is more about severing connections to it rather than bricking devices (which I abhor). The hacker disconnects your cybereyes from it reducing the pool by 4. The player Hacker tries to reconnect but the enemy hacker is throwing up White Noise or other interference, then they can duke it out.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 18 2013, 07:21 PM
Yeah, Bricking Devices is terribad. And the arguments that the devs/freelancers have used still do not stand up, as the Slang Terminology [for that word] in the Book [yes, right there in the booik itself] describes actual destruction of the device as what it means. What a horrible mess this is.
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 07:41 PM
I've got a few thoughts bouncing around, nothing concrete yet, but I figured I'd share some of what I've thought of so far.
First, I like the whole temporarily disabling devices thing. Hacking gear and 'ware is all good and fine. However, having separate bonuses for every action a hacker might take is fiddly and annoying, and I prefer simplicity.
Secondly, tacnets are cool, but not a solution to the entire issue. Flat DP bonuses are sort of boring. Not that they aren't useful or anything, but they are boring.
Having said that, the wireless bonuses should give you a benefit to an action. Since actions, in game, take dice, bonus DP is probably somewhat necessary, but hacking a tacnet and knocking off DP bonuses should provide a distinct and clear advantage - if it doesn't, and you're only taking off a hit or so, then people will use tacnets for additional support, but not be entirely inconvenienced when you hack it.
What tacnets should do, in my opinion, is not so much provide a DP bonus, but provide better wireless security, something beyond 'slave everything to the decker and hope he doesn't sell you out in the process.'
I haven't quite figured out exactly how to do that, but hopefully this'll provide some food for thought.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 07:56 PM
My proposal for the TacNet isn't a straight bonus to dice, it's a shared dicepool that adds a layer of team-based resource management. I'm also thinking of making the maximum dice withdrawal 2 for character with an external TacNet client (so, someone with an external commlink) and 3 for an internal one (a TacNet client running on an implanted commlink), to give an extra bonus to cyberware-oriented sammies.
I don't link bricking either, but I do think more vulnerability than just "severing connection to the TacNet" is a good thing - so I could add this: if a hacker gets marks on the TacNet or on a device, he can use a "Control Device" action to lower the limit for any action involving that device by 2. So for instance, hacking cybereyes this way would lower the limit for perception and shooting rolls by 2.
Posted by: Samoth Jul 18 2013, 08:13 PM
Something I can't find: Do Commlinks have Firewall equal to their Device Rating?
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 08:14 PM
Yes, they're devices, and all devices but cyberdecks and RCCs do.
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 08:15 PM
I don't link bricking either, but I do think more vulnerability than just "severing connection to the TacNet" is a good thing - so I could add this: if a hacker gets marks on the TacNet or on a device, he can use a "Control Device" action to lower the limit for any action involving that device by 2. So for instance, hacking cybereyes this way would lower the limit for perception and shooting rolls by 2.
I suppose my issue with the shared combat pool is the word combat pool, which brings back horrid memories of SR3. So I may be a bit biased, but that seems workable. It'd give a reason to have implanted commlinks again, but I'm curious about why you only chose 2 or 3 dice. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just interested in the reasoning.
For the second point, that seems workable, but how many actions should it take for the hacker to get through? If it takes more than a turn or two, then it doesn't matter as the sammie should've ghosted the opposition by then. Do you picture it working like this?
Samurai Joe and Billy the Decker are pinned down at an Evo warehouse, hiding behind a few steel-sided crates. Four corpsec is facing them at other end of the warehouse, one of which is behind good cover and pressing suppressive fire down at the path between them and the exit. The other three are only under partial cover, so samurai Joe pops up and caps one of the partially covered corpsec after aiming (2 single actions) while Billy the Decker uses (complex action) brute force to place a mark on the corpsec's tacnet. Corpsec fire, miss, or whatever, and Samurai Joe responds by capping another one of the corpsec. Then Billy the Decker uses his next complex action (assuming 2 passes) to make the suppressive fire guy have a lower limit, therefore capping his next suppressive fire hits to something manageable. The remaining corpsec try to flee, Samurai Joe caps another one of them, and the turn ends.
(Presuming, of course, that Samurai Joe is good enough to ghost a corpsec with every pass, of course - still, there's no reason to think he shouldn't be, but I feel if the sam can waste the opposition at a good rate, the decker needs to have actions comparable to that, at combat speeds.)
Posted by: Wired_SR_AEGIS Jul 18 2013, 08:30 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Combat Pool was awesome!
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 08:31 PM
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
It broke immersion and prevented me from doing awesome shit. As I play the game for immersion and doing awesome shit, I'll have to disagree
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 08:43 PM
I estimated the max bonus at 2/3 dice because:
-It has to be big enough to make a change and make limits relevant.
-It has to be bigger than the contribution of a single device to the dicepool (so that it doesn't feel like you're just getting a self-contained "+1" when attaching a device)
-It is big enough that it will deplete fast, encouraging the subscription of many devices.
As for the vulnerability, getting 2 marks on the TacNet server will be 1 to 2 complex actions, getting 3 marks 1 to 3 actions, and the action to send bogus data/commands (like, making the cybereyes picture distorted) is going to be complex or simple, depending.
So between 1 and 3 actions to access the central node, and 1 actions thereafter for each device you want to mess up.
Posted by: cryptoknight Jul 18 2013, 09:04 PM
I still like the DP as the thing that the Tacnet is represented by in the mechanics of how the system works.
but what about Hackers stealing and coopting the opposing tacnet to literally steal dice from the pool of the opposition?
i.e. fluff wise you perform a Man-in-the-middle attack on the link of your opposition sam's cybereyes and divert his data stream into your tacnet letting you suddenly see where 3 of his team are (you take 4 dice from their pool), you pass along his signal to his team so he doesn't know you've tapped him, but the stolen dice that are now in your team's pool are also a representation of the fact that the data coming from his cybereyes is slowed down or something.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 09:07 PM
but what about Hackers stealing and coopting the opposing tacnet to literally steal dice from the pool of the opposition?
i.e. fluff wise you perform a Man-in-the-middle attack on the link of your opposition sam's cybereyes and divert his data stream into your tacnet letting you suddenly see where 3 of his team are (you take 4 dice from their pool), you pass along his signal to his team so he doesn't know you've tapped him, but the stolen dice that are now in your team's pool are also a representation of the fact that the data coming from his cybereyes is slowed down or something.
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 09:27 PM
-It has to be big enough to make a change and make limits relevant.
-It has to be bigger than the contribution of a single device to the dicepool (so that it doesn't feel like you're just getting a self-contained "+1" when attaching a device)
-It is big enough that it will deplete fast, encouraging the subscription of many devices.
As for the vulnerability, getting 2 marks on the TacNet server will be 1 to 2 complex actions, getting 3 marks 1 to 3 actions, and the action to send bogus data/commands (like, making the cybereyes picture distorted) is going to be complex or simple, depending.
So between 1 and 3 actions to access the central node, and 1 actions thereafter for each device you want to mess up.
But getting a mark on a device is a single complex Brute Force or Hacking on the Fly action. Are you going to houserule you need a new matrix action, or specify that you need 2 marks minimum on the tacnet server in order to do other shit? What are you going to make the tacnet server as well? Per SR5 RAW, there are only six types of icons - device, persona, file, pan, grid, and host. Is the tacnet going to be a pan or a wan?
So say you get 2 marks on a tacnet server (let's say it's a WAN or some shit, I need to reread the pan/wan descriptions to see if that's even viable), that's probably 2 complex actions, ie, two passes. That's probably what you'll have a decker, maybe a 3rd pass. So in a turn, all you've managed is just getting those 2 marks, and maybe a single spoof command. Still feels too long to me, where the sam has already ghosted most of the opposition.
I feel that the decker should have, for lack of a better term, AoE effects to compensate for the slow speed of his work. So he takes a while to get marks on whatever, but he can affect a large group once he does.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 09:32 PM
A mark (or 2 or three if you're willing to take risks) is a single complex action, but "Control Device" is also a simple or complex action, requiring 2 (simple action) or 3 (complex action) marks.
And the TacNet server is someone's commlink, set in master. The TacNet clients are other commlinks, set to slave.
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 09:52 PM
And the TacNet server is someone's commlink, set in master. The TacNet clients are other commlinks, set to slave.
I haven't taken too hard of a close look at the slaving rules for 5, but wouldn't it make it better to hack the commlink directly rather than futzing around with the tacnet, if that setup is used?
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 09:54 PM
That's what I meant by "hacking the TacNet". It's just that since I don't like the rules for bricking, I was suggesting other possibilities for consequences when someone had access to your slaved devices.
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 09:55 PM
Ah, I see. I thought you meant the tacnet as a separate thing, rather than shorthand for benefits you get by being slaved to a decker (or whatever).
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 09:56 PM
I actually see it as software or commlink add-on that requires a connection between at least two characters (each having the software installed)
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 09:58 PM
That still raises the issue of why go after the tacnet software or add-on when you can hack the master and slaves directly, though.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 18 2013, 09:59 PM
You don't, but it gives a good excuse for the commlinks to be on wireless-mode in the first place. Also gives a good excuse for slaving gear instead of putting it "offline".
Posted by: Wired_SR_AEGIS Jul 18 2013, 10:05 PM
I always liked how it prevented someone from dodging an infinite number of shots fired against them by bad marksmen.
Must be all the realism I prefer out of a game... with... elves and... drag--erm, nevermind.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
Posted by: quentra Jul 18 2013, 10:07 PM
Must be all the realism I prefer out of a game... with... elves and... drag--erm, nevermind.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
^_^
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 19 2013, 01:44 AM
Your eyes don't connect. You commlink does. Your eyes are shared through that. You basically hack to isolate people from the tacnet.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 19 2013, 01:54 AM
For the second point, that seems workable, but how many actions should it take for the hacker to get through? If it takes more than a turn or two, then it doesn't matter as the sammie should've ghosted the opposition by then. Do you picture it working like this?
Samurai Joe and Billy the Decker are pinned down at an Evo warehouse, hiding behind a few steel-sided crates. Four corpsec is facing them at other end of the warehouse, one of which is behind good cover and pressing suppressive fire down at the path between them and the exit. The other three are only under partial cover, so samurai Joe pops up and caps one of the partially covered corpsec after aiming (2 single actions) while Billy the Decker uses (complex action) brute force to place a mark on the corpsec's tacnet. Corpsec fire, miss, or whatever, and Samurai Joe responds by capping another one of the corpsec. Then Billy the Decker uses his next complex action (assuming 2 passes) to make the suppressive fire guy have a lower limit, therefore capping his next suppressive fire hits to something manageable. The remaining corpsec try to flee, Samurai Joe caps another one of them, and the turn ends.
(Presuming, of course, that Samurai Joe is good enough to ghost a corpsec with every pass, of course - still, there's no reason to think he shouldn't be, but I feel if the sam can waste the opposition at a good rate, the decker needs to have actions comparable to that, at combat speeds.)
I wouldn't call it a combat pool. i would call it a tacnet pool. It should be able to be used for combat rolls. But also perception rolls, leadership rolls and tactics rolls of various types.
Hacking a tacnet could lower limits. But you could also steal dice for your own tacnet pool. (simulating stealing the intel your tacnet has to give you an advantage) Also perhaps a tacnet will allow a decker to do teamwork on certain skills rolls like perception. Don't the teamwork rules allow limits and dice to be added to your roll?
I see as I was catching up some of my ideas were already thought of
Posted by: cryptoknight Jul 19 2013, 02:24 AM
You put your eyes online and slave them to the team hacker's cyberdeck running the team's tacnet. That's a link to the Cyberdeck as a slaved device.
The hackers are taking those devices and slaving them to their cyberdeck and creating some alternate feed to the other team's tacnet.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 19 2013, 03:02 AM
The hackers are taking those devices and slaving them to their cyberdeck and creating some alternate feed to the other team's tacnet.
No. I do not want eyes having wireless connections of their own. They don't need one and should not have one. They need to go through a data jack or some other connection.
Posted by: Jaid Jul 19 2013, 03:47 AM
in SR5, it doesn't really matter even a tiny bit how things are connected. all that matters is that they are. if it's connected, no matter how many things it is going through first, it is vulnerable.
and actually, having eyes *capable* of wireless makes a heck of a lot of sense, given that they are cameras as well. you can use them to film your family vacation and then take that from your eyes, and put it wherever else you feel like. if we're talking about some special super-amazing military-only laz0r eyes that can also serve as hand grenades in a dire emergency, then yeah... those shouldn't be wireless. but given you're just buying the commercial model (and then installing vision mods in it), wireless legitimately makes a lot of sense.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 19 2013, 03:52 AM
First, whether or not they use a wireless connection is up to the user. If someone wants to register cybereyes but has no datajack or implanted commlink, then wireless is pretty much the only solution.
Second, since they have a connection to the TacNet (even indirectly), they're hackable through the TacNet anyway, even if the connection is wired. The TacNet needs to be wireless because it needs 2 characters.
Posted by: Epicedion Jul 19 2013, 03:53 AM
and actually, having eyes *capable* of wireless makes a heck of a lot of sense, given that they are cameras as well. you can use them to film your family vacation and then take that from your eyes, and put it wherever else you feel like. if we're talking about some special super-amazing military-only laz0r eyes that can also serve as hand grenades in a dire emergency, then yeah... those shouldn't be wireless. but given you're just buying the commercial model (and then installing vision mods in it), wireless legitimately makes a lot of sense.
Presumably you could wire your eyes out your datajack directly to a datachip without ever turning on any wireless, but you wouldn't be able to transmit that information to other people very quickly. Also you'd have a datachip hanging off the side of your head.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 19 2013, 05:09 AM
out the datajack to your commlink.
Posted by: RHat Jul 19 2013, 05:18 AM
So, you plug a cable into your eyeball? This seems impractical. Remember, we're talking about a character who doesn't have a datajack in the first place. And many things are simply impractical to wire.
Posted by: Jaid Jul 19 2013, 05:40 AM
sure. if you had a datajack. not everyone with cybereyes will.
like i said, for some organization that has a reasonable expectation of running into nanites that will force a device into wireless state if available, wireless cybereyes that can have the wireless turned off or on is undesirable.
for pretty much anyone else, wireless cybereyes makes far more sense. it's more convenient, and convenience trumps security as a general rule. you either make your security convenient (and for most people, simply disabling the wireless when they're not using it actively is as much security as they'll ever need on their cybereyes), or don't bother, because people will bypass the security for convenience, and generally that will leave far larger security holes than just providing a less secure method that is still convenient. worse yet, you will know about the security holes in the convenient-but-less-secure design that you make, and can cover it in exceptional situations. if it's people altering your ultra-secure-but-inconvenient design, you won't know what they're going to do to get around it.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 20 2013, 01:55 AM
[quote name='RHat' date='Jul 18 2013, 10:18 PM' post='1245396']
So, you plug a cable into your eyeball? This seems impractical. Remember, we're talking about a character who doesn't have a datajack in the first place. And many things are simply impractical to wire.
[/quot
Most cyberware has to be wired to you brain. not a stretch to pipe a datajack into that. What changed in 3 years?
Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 20 2013, 02:11 AM
Matrix security, for one.
And the big question, can you still, by RAW, claim a wireless bonus if everything's physically wired instead?
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 20 2013, 02:17 AM
And the big question, can you still, by RAW, claim a wireless bonus if everything's physically wired instead?
What does matrix security have to do with peoples cyber eyes being connected to their brain? This is my problem with the whole wireless bonus thing. It makes no sense at all.
Posted by: Jaid Jul 20 2013, 02:22 AM
And the big question, can you still, by RAW, claim a wireless bonus if everything's physically wired instead?
officially, no. not even if the wireless bonus makes absolutely no sense to be tied to an actual matrix connection. it has to be an actual matrix connection if it is to gain the bonus.
unofficially, many of us think that's stupid (the part where it has to be connected to the matrix specifically, and the part where some of the bonuses should logically work with wired DNI connections just fine, or even better than a matrix connection). others seem to think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 20 2013, 02:32 AM
Shadow Knight: Just think of the hard on a spider or security rigger might get if they can 'sniff' the feed from your cybereyes and see what you see.
Jaid: I know a guy who's going to be running an SR5 game (jumping from SR3), who pretty much thinks the later. He loves to screw with sloppy players, and these various wireless bonuses are a kilo of frosting on the cake. And yes, when I asked about using some datajacks to wire Reaction Enhancers, Wired Reflexes, cybereyes with a smartlink, and a smartgun, all to a cyberdeck, he laughed before saying "No."
Posted by: Jaid Jul 20 2013, 02:46 AM
Jaid: I know a guy who's going to be running an SR5 game (jumping from SR3), who pretty much thinks the later. He loves to screw with sloppy players, and these various wireless bonuses are a kilo of frosting on the cake. And yes, when I asked about using some datajacks to wire Reaction Enhancers, Wired Reflexes, cybereyes with a smartlink, and a smartgun, all to a cyberdeck, he laughed before saying "No."
ok. here's your solution:
cyberdecks make for lousy matrix defense anyways. get a used implanted rating 7 commlink. it will work better
if you think you're getting hacked, turn on a high rating jammer and watch the opposing decker weep as he eats a 6 point penalty to all his dicepools. use the commlink to avoid being jammed yourself.
Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 20 2013, 02:49 AM
Wouldn't've thought a commlink could have the processing power necessary for that with the new matrix rules.
Posted by: Jaid Jul 20 2013, 02:59 AM
in almost every case, firewall is used for defense. your commlink has firewall = device rating.
but hey, let's not stop there:
page 237:
"If
a device is completely unattended, the Device Rating
stands in for any Mental attributes an icon needs but
doesn’t have. For example, a device that an owner sets
and forgets, like a door lock, uses its Device Rating in
place of Intuition as part of the defense pool against a
Control Device action."
so ummm... make sure you don't pay any attention whatsoever to your commlink, i guess. just get it installed, and then never ever ever use it. in fact, get yourself a cat, and designate that cat as the owner. since the cat has no way of "attending" the commlink, you'll get rating times two, apparently.
unless of course you have amazing intuition.
Posted by: Neurosis Jul 20 2013, 04:37 AM
Well then you sure as fuck aren't connected to a tacnet.
In other news, the way a design goal is implemented doesn't reflect on the goal itself. We're talking here about a completely different implementation, after all, but first we gots to agree on goals.
Sorry, I was away from thread quite a while, I know this is an old comment I'm responding to.
Yeah, a really good defense for an Intuition 2 character that finds their Rating 6 commlink being hacked is to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPANKayHpcc. :eyeroll:
Posted by: Jaid Jul 20 2013, 05:55 AM
*shrug* i don't make up these silly rules. i just poke holes in them.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 20 2013, 06:23 AM
Here's a draft of a potential TacNet Houserule:
TacNet rules, v0.5
Design goal:
Providing hacker-type characters with actions to directly undermine opposition in combat/fast-paced situations, via mechanical incentive for characters (PCs and NPCs) to make their devices accessible from the matrix, while preserving suspension of disbelief.
Gear:
TacNet (Electronic Accessories) : Availability 4, 1000Ą
While listed in Electronic Accessories, the TacNet is technically a software add-on to a commlink, cyberterminal or RCC. TacNet software integrates sensor output, status report from cyberware or other equipment and other combat-relevant data to provide advanced tactical advice on the battlefield. To be effective, TacNet requires at least two characters to own commlinks (cyberdecks/RCC included) with the TacNet accessory, connected to the matrix. These characters have to decide to create a TacNet network, essentially telling their devices to exchange information and talk to each other via wireless. Note that this doesn't require a Master/Slave relationship between the two commlinks.
TacNets have a special dice pool called the TacNet pool. Each compatible device that a character will slave to a commlink that participates to the TacNet (not necessarily his own, if you want the decker's protection!) will provide 1 die to the maximum TacNet pool. This pool refreshes at the beginning of each turn (and only then). Adding more devices mid-turn doesn't provide extra dice until the next refresh. Edit: in order to contribute dice to the pool or withdraw dice from the pool, all characters need to be "in the same general area". This is deliberately left vague because the relevant area can vary from situation to situation. If the action is happening on the streets, for instance, a character in a helicopter 200 feet above but with a good view of the scene will provide dice to the TacNet and will be able to withdraw dice from it.
This pool is used as follow: a character with a commlink participating in the TacNet (and the means to obtain the advice provided by the commlink, at least via audio or visual interface - glasses, earphones, etc.) may withdraw dice from the TacNet pool and add them as a bonus to any test that doesn't involve a resonance or awakened skill. Dice withrawn from the pool are not available for anyone else until the next TacNet pool refresh. The maximum number of dice that can be withdrawn for any single action is 2 if the character doesn't have DNI to the commlink, or 3 if he does.
In order for gear to actually provide a bonus, in needs to be involved in the general situation the characters are facing. Deploying a series of Smart Firing Platforms facing a wall in an isolated corridor during a run won't provide any bonuses, but a single one covering the back of a team while they're facing a squad of Red Sams will. An Ares Predator in its holster won't contribute any die to the TacNet pool, but one in the runner's hands will. Unless otherwise noted, only one instance of each item can be registered per character.
List of gear that can provide dice to a TacNet ("compatible"):
Smart Firing Platform (when deployed in a relevant location)
Smartgun System
Chameleon Suit
Hazmat Suit
Biomonitor
Sensor Array
Control Rig
Olfactory Booster
Ultrasound Sensor (when active)
Skilljack
Wired Reflexes / Reaction Enhancers
Cyberlimbs (multiple cyberlimbs can be added to the TacNet)
Imaging Scope / Cybereyes /Glasses / Periscope / Endoscope / Mage Sight Goggles (only one per character)
Cyberears / Microphone (laser/omnidirectional/directional) (only one per character)
Hacking the TacNet:
If an enemy hacker obtains 2 marks on a commlink running a TacNet, he may use a "Control Device" simple action on that commlink to feed it with misleading data. Any time the character that owns this commlink withdraws dice from the TacNet, instead of gaining a bonus equal to the number of withdrawn dice, that character gains a penalty equal to that same number.
If an enemy hacker obtains 3 marks on a commlink running a TacNet, he can use a "Control Device" complex action to "steal" the TacNet pool for the turn, preventing any character participating to that TacNet from withdrawing any further die for the remainder of the turn and, if he so chooses, and adding extra dice to another TacNet to which he is himself participating equal to the number of non-withdrawn dice on the hacked TacNet (essentially turning the TacNet against the team).
I'll personally also use an optional rule about matrix condition monitors and such:
When a matrix condition monitor is filled, the corresponding device isn't bricked. Instead, its embedded computer crashes and shuts down, essentially disconnecting the device and shutting down some or all of its functions until it's switched on again. Some devices have a failsafe mode or redundancies that allow ongoing critical or vital functions (a plane's basic avionics, a cyberheart's basic pump) in such situations.
Posted by: Sendaz Jul 20 2013, 06:46 AM
Okay silly question probably but I can see most of the items working with this, but why the chameleon suit? what does it add to the input of the tac-net? I can see the hazmat as it might sample the air and provide data on same, but not sure what the chameleon would be sending off to the tac net to report.
May be missing something obvious...
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 20 2013, 06:51 AM
May be missing something obvious...
The Chameleon suit has advanced awareness of its surrounding -it runs a "4 pi" scan of the area so it can imitate it. This sort of data seems relevant to the TacNet as well.
Posted by: Epicedion Jul 20 2013, 07:05 AM
Counterpoint:
A TacNet Control Unit (TNCU) runs as an upgrade to a cyberdeck or commlink (cyberdecks are somewhat more secure).
Individual TacNet Member Units (TNMUs) run as upgrades to commlinks. A TNCU can host a number of TNMUs equal to its rating. Individual devices (cybereyes, cyberears, goggles, etc) can be linked to the TNCU by that sub-unit's owner -- basically anything in your PAN if you have a TNCU links into the greater TacNet.
Any member of a TacNet can utilize the audio/visual information available to any other member -- the TacNet sorts out through a variety of configurable filters what information is relevant. In its basic configuration a TacNet will allow any individual member of a TacNet to use the best modifier available regarding a target that any other member of the TacNet would have.
That is, if Member A has thermographic vision enabled and Member B doesn't, so long as Member A has a visual of the target (presuming pitch blackness), Member B can use that better modifier (-3 instead of -6, or however). That includes blind-fire penalties, so as long as someone in the TacNet has any sort of visual on a target, no one suffers the blind-fire penalty (though cover is still addressed from the source of an attack).
Further, if a member of the TacNet has a Smartlink, any other member of the TacNet with a Smartlink can use that member's Take Aim modifier so long as they take at least one Take Aim action before firing. That is, if Member A uses 4 consecutive Take Aim actions (for +4 Accuracy and +4 dice), Member B, C, and D can all opt to spend one action on Take Aim and receive the full +4/+4 bonus rather than their individual +1/+1 bonuses. In that way, one person in a TacNet can server as a spotter' for the other members.
Lastly, the owner of the TNCU can spend a Simple Action to issue a command and perform a Leadership + Logic test as a Teamwork Test to the next specified action of a member of the TacNet, so long as that member follows the explicit directions of the TNCU.
That is, if the TNCU owner orders Member A to "take cover behind the stack of boxes 2m to your left and shoot the target being spotted by Member B" and opts to use his Teamwork Test on Member A's defense, then Member A can take those precise instructions and receive the teamwork bonus to his defense dice the next time he rolls defense that turn.
A hacker can affect a TacNet by forcing individuals to drop out of the network (thus reducing the TacNet's overall effectiveness), changing the available data (deleting target data or adding false data with Edit File actions), or by more insidiously spoofing commands from the TNCU -- ordering members to take tactically detrimental actions, with the hacker making his own Leadership + Logic Teamwork Tests to provide negative modifiers to specified actions. A TacNet hacker might spend two Simple Actions to tell Members A and B to move into bad cover and attack separate targets, and apply his negative Teamwork Test to their shots, or order them out of cover and reduce their defense dice. The Members of the TacNet might realize their tactical instructions are bad or their audio/visual data is faulty and choose to ignore instructions or drop the link, thus negating the primary benefits of the TacNet entirely until control can be reestablished by the owner of the TNCU.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 20 2013, 07:44 AM
A TacNet Control Unit (TNCU) runs as an upgrade to a cyberdeck or commlink (cyberdecks are somewhat more secure).
Individual TacNet Member Units (TNMUs) run as upgrades to commlinks. A TNCU can host a number of TNMUs equal to its rating. Individual devices (cybereyes, cyberears, goggles, etc) can be linked to the TNCU by that sub-unit's owner -- basically anything in your PAN if you have a TNCU links into the greater TacNet.
Any member of a TacNet can utilize the audio/visual information available to any other member -- the TacNet sorts out through a variety of configurable filters what information is relevant. In its basic configuration a TacNet will allow any individual member of a TacNet to use the best modifier available regarding a target that any other member of the TacNet would have.
That is, if Member A has thermographic vision enabled and Member B doesn't, so long as Member A has a visual of the target (presuming pitch blackness), Member B can use that better modifier (-3 instead of -6, or however). That includes blind-fire penalties, so as long as someone in the TacNet has any sort of visual on a target, no one suffers the blind-fire penalty (though cover is still addressed from the source of an attack).
Assuming line of sight and both characters are in a similar location.GM may apply additional penalties for have to extrapolate location
Further, if a member of the TacNet has a Smartlink, any other member of the TacNet with a Smartlink can use that member's Take Aim modifier so long as they take at least one Take Aim action before firing. That is, if Member A uses 4 consecutive Take Aim actions (for +4 Accuracy and +4 dice), Member B, C, and D can all opt to spend one action on Take Aim and receive the full +4/+4 bonus rather than their individual +1/+1 bonuses. In that way, one person in a TacNet can server as a spotter' for the other members.
Assuming line of sight and both characters are in a similar location.GM may apply additional penalties for have to extrapolate location
Lastly, the owner of the TNCU can spend a Simple Action to issue a command and perform a Leadership + Logic test as a Teamwork Test to the next specified action of a member of the TacNet, so long as that member follows the explicit directions of the TNCU.
That is, if the TNCU owner orders Member A to "take cover behind the stack of boxes 2m to your left and shoot the target being spotted by Member B" and opts to use his Teamwork Test on Member A's defense, then Member A can take those precise instructions and receive the teamwork bonus to his defense dice the next time he rolls defense that turn.
A hacker can affect a TacNet by forcing individuals to drop out of the network (thus reducing the TacNet's overall effectiveness), changing the available data (deleting target data or adding false data with Edit File actions), or by more insidiously spoofing commands from the TNCU -- ordering members to take tactically detrimental actions, with the hacker making his own Leadership + Logic Teamwork Tests to provide negative modifiers to specified actions. A TacNet hacker might spend two Simple Actions to tell Members A and B to move into bad cover and attack separate targets, and apply his negative Teamwork Test to their shots, or order them out of cover and reduce their defense dice. The Members of the TacNet might realize their tactical instructions are bad or their audio/visual data is faulty and choose to ignore instructions or drop the link, thus negating the primary benefits of the TacNet entirely until control can be reestablished by the owner of the TNCU.
I like what you guys have so far. I think both those rock. Asside from my minor notes.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 20 2013, 07:45 AM
TacNet rules, v0.5
Design goal:
Providing hacker-type characters with actions to directly undermine opposition in combat/fast-paced situations, via mechanical incentive for characters (PCs and NPCs) to make their devices accessible from the matrix, while preserving suspension of disbelief.
Gear:
TacNet (Electronic Accessories) : Availability 4, 1000Ą
While listed in Electronic Accessories, the TacNet is technically a software add-on to a commlink, cyberterminal or RCC. TacNet software integrates sensor output, status report from cyberware or other equipment and other combat-relevant data to provide advanced tactical advice on the battlefield. To be effective, TacNet requires at least two characters to own commlinks (cyberdecks/RCC included) with the TacNet accessory, connected to the matrix. These characters have to decide to create a TacNet network, essentially telling their devices to exchange information and talk to each other via wireless. Note that this doesn't require a Master/Slave relationship between the two commlinks.
TacNets have a special dice pool called the TacNet pool. Each compatible device that a character will slave to a commlink that participates to the TacNet (not necessarily his own, if you want the decker's protection!) will provide 1 die to the maximum TacNet pool. This pool refreshes at the beginning of each turn (and only then). Adding more devices mid-turn doesn't provide extra dice until the next refresh. Edit: in order to contribute dice to the pool or withdraw dice from the pool, all characters need to be "in the same general area". This is deliberately left vague because the relevant area can vary from situation to situation. If the action is happening on the streets, for instance, a character in a helicopter 200 feet above but with a good view of the scene will provide dice to the TacNet and will be able to withdraw dice from it.
This pool is used as follow: a character with a commlink participating in the TacNet (and the means to obtain the advice provided by the commlink, at least via audio or visual interface - glasses, earphones, etc.) may withdraw dice from the TacNet pool and add them as a bonus to any test that doesn't involve a resonance or awakened skill. Dice withrawn from the pool are not available for anyone else until the next TacNet pool refresh. The maximum number of dice that can be withdrawn for any single action is 2 if the character doesn't have DNI to the commlink, or 3 if he does.
In order for gear to actually provide a bonus, in needs to be involved in the general situation the characters are facing. Deploying a series of Smart Firing Platforms facing a wall in an isolated corridor during a run won't provide any bonuses, but a single one covering the back of a team while they're facing a squad of Red Sams will. An Ares Predator in its holster won't contribute any die to the TacNet pool, but one in the runner's hands will. Unless otherwise noted, only one instance of each item can be registered per character.
List of gear that can provide dice to a TacNet ("compatible"):
Smart Firing Platform (when deployed in a relevant location)
Smartgun System
Chameleon Suit
Hazmat Suit
Biomonitor
Sensor Array
Control Rig
Olfactory Booster
Ultrasound Sensor (when active)
Skilljack
Wired Reflexes / Reaction Enhancers
Cyberlimbs (multiple cyberlimbs can be added to the TacNet)
Imaging Scope / Cybereyes /Glasses / Periscope / Endoscope / Mage Sight Goggles (only one per character)
Cyberears / Microphone (laser/omnidirectional/directional) (only one per character)
Hacking the TacNet:
If an enemy hacker obtains 2 marks on a commlink running a TacNet, he may use a "Control Device" simple action on that commlink to feed it with misleading data. Any time the character that owns this commlink withdraws dice from the TacNet, instead of gaining a bonus equal to the number of withdrawn dice, that character gains a penalty equal to that same number.
If an enemy hacker obtains 3 marks on a commlink running a TacNet, he can use a "Control Device" complex action to "steal" the TacNet pool for the turn, preventing any character participating to that TacNet from withdrawing any further die for the remainder of the turn and, if he so chooses, and adding extra dice to another TacNet to which he is himself participating equal to the number of non-withdrawn dice on the hacked TacNet (essentially turning the TacNet against the team).
I'll personally also use an optional rule about matrix condition monitors and such:
When a matrix condition monitor is filled, the corresponding device isn't bricked. Instead, its embedded computer crashes and shuts down, essentially disconnecting the device and shutting down some or all of its functions until it's switched on again. Some devices have a failsafe mode or redundancies that allow ongoing critical or vital functions (a plane's basic avionics, a cyberheart's basic pump) in such situations.
How would wired reflexes benefit a tacnet?
How do drones fit in? are they handled by sensor arrays?
Posted by: Falconer Jul 20 2013, 01:48 PM
I think both have seemed to miss the point.
To me the point isn't that tacnets *NOT* become a piece of uber add-on gear. But that the stupid 'matrix bonuses' be completely replaced by a pervasive tacnet system that is simply part of the core rules. Provide a reason for people to want to network all those items on their list of toys.
Example: you can't get more than 1 die from the pool per device subscribed to the tacnet per combat turn. Now you have a reason to subscribe a lot of items. Street sams with all their toys go to the top of the list... as do riggers.
Earlier a lot of the dice pool mechanics mentioned made a lot of sense. I remember dice pools in the SR3 and earlier sense. They weren't that hard to work with... and contrary to ones assertion they tended to allow people to pull the awesome without resorting to karma pool. (they'd put as much of their pool into one roll instead of dribbling it out or saving it for defense).
I think the key problem is this. Not making up new gear for a tacnet... this is simply something anyone with a commlink/deck can do or join (maybe make it software... though I'd prefer to integrate it at a lower level like the system of the device... it just is). Simply redefining the matrix bonuses in a way which makes sense (no cyberlimb bonuses to a tacnet as I saw someone just did!). Then defining a new set of actions so that someone can maintain the pool... refreshing it, maybe enhancing the number of dice a member can pull. Or that someone can attack it. (instead of a bonus they'd get a penalty instead if attacked, disconnect them from the network, remove dice from the pool, insert misinformation into the pool... etc.).
Posted by: tangmcgame Jul 20 2013, 02:32 PM
Just a few quick thoughts.
Is there any merit to the ideas of letting a friendly decker/technomancer serve as the tacnet administrator and provide a dicepool similar to how counterspelling works? Then the bonus pool isn't so beholden to having a cybered up group and it accomplishes the goal of having the decker contribute more directly. What if these dice could be assigned to any action and they could be assigned and rolled after the initial pool has been rolled? Maybe your street sam misses a critical shot, so you give him 3 more dice to try to squeak out a hit. That could be a powerful bonus even if the pool is relatively small.
For other tacnet bonuses, what about initiative redistribution? Maybe a character could get up to +5 initiative provided the other members in the tacnet are willing to reduce their initiative by a similar amount (one character drops his by 5 or two drop theirs by 3 and 2, etc.). Other ideas: bonus free or simple actions, reduced penalties from environmental sources (cover, weather), additional movement, improved teamwork test bonuses or additional teamwork combat options.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 20 2013, 03:58 PM
@Falconer: the new gear is here for verisimilitude purposes. I don't see the matrix doing this sort of tactical calculations so you can perform illegal violent acts, and I don't see this being basic commlink functionality. Discrete software seems like the most realistic option, and 1000 nuyen seems low enough that almost any mundane character can afford it, but high enough to not be a "no-brainer" for others.
That said, I don't understand what you're trying to say - it's a bit confusing. In particular, I *did* provide a reason to turn matrix access on for all these items: each one adds to the dice pool. There's already incentive for the Street Samurai to put *more* gear online: adding more dice to the pool, hence providing *more* bonuses for the team on critical skill checks. Your saying I didn't provide such an incentive leaves me puzzled.
How do drones fit in? are they handled by sensor arrays?
Wired reflexes benefit a TacNet through position/action awareness (which is useful for coordination: "Joe is getting ready to sprint through the corridor") and motion interpretation (that is, if the character punches an enemy, the wired reflexes can transmit enough motion information for the TacNet to know which sort of armor/muscle mass the fist encountered, via recoil analysis).
I'm not sure how to handle drones. Maybe "only drones registered to a RCC/jumped in can contribute dice", so that characters can't just fill the air with cheap microdrones to get 200 extra dice.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 20 2013, 04:10 PM
In other news, the way a design goal is implemented doesn't reflect on the goal itself. We're talking here about a completely different implementation, after all, but first we gots to agree on goals.
Sorry, I was away from thread quite a while, I know this is an old comment I'm responding to.
No worries...
You say that like it actually means something. And it doesn't. I do not build my characters to rely upon a Tacnet, nor do I care if I have the bonus or not. SO, going dark will 100% protect me from the opposition Hacker, and will not impact my abilities one whit (and is the only real choice, as "bricking ware" is just stupid. So, therefore, the design goal of having people connected to the matrix because of [IDIOCY] has absolutely failed to achieve its mark (And That WAS the Design Goal, as has already been stated many times... they wanted to incentivize Hackers and give them something to do in Combat). I see no BENEFIT from the Wireless Bonuses as presented in this book (you really did fail there, Neurosis, no offense), and I see a huge pile of detriments to incentivize me to stay the hell off the matrix when actively shadowrunning.
I think the real problem is that JH made assumptions about the game that do not stand up to scrutiny (I know some Freelancers had opposing opinions, but were overridden). It has been stated many times that hackers had PLENTY to do in game, even in combat (I know mine did). It was also shown that "Hacking Ware" was a horrible idea, and that is something that CGL actually recognized and stepped away from as SR4 developed. Unfortunately, apparently JH LIKES the idea of Ware Hacking and so therefore forced it down everyone's throat. And then CGL (Devs and Freelancers) wonder why there is a hue and cry about the decision. And then you get upset that people are slamming your baby (Wireless Bonuses) while wondering WHY it was not received as well as you thought it should have been.
Again, some of the rules appear to have been approached with absolutely no clue on what the game is actually about. This is just another example of poor implementation. *shrug*
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 20 2013, 04:13 PM
May be missing something obvious...
Cannot get on-board with a Hazmat suit either... Want to sample the air, use an actual Sensor. And yes, the Chameleon Suit breaks the design goal for me, as I can not suspend my disbelief that a piece of Armor (Even one that can help you remain undetected) actually matters in a Tacnet. *shrug*
Also do not like Wired Reflexes or Reaction Enhancers adding to the Tacnet. Sensors, Yes... Non-Sensors, No.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 20 2013, 04:15 PM
It's not "a piece of armor", it's a complete network of sensors. That's *how* it works.
polymer coating supported by a sensor suite; the
technology allows it to scan its surroundings and replicate
the images at the proper perspectives
Anyway, it's a community-driven design thing, I'm not the leader of the TacNet project. This was a suggestion (and how I'm going to run it at my table), but if the community thinks wired reflexes shouldn't be on this table, or that the chameleon suit's sensor net isn't appropriate for a TacNet for some reason, then the dumpshock-official version won't have them (provided the TacNet pool version is the one that gets the most votes, which isn't a given by any stretch).
Finally, my main reason to include these was that I wanted to avoid only giving bonuses for cybereyes/cyberears/obvious sensors, which makes for a very limited set of devices. It's not inconveivable that Wired Reflexes could give a lot of feedback that a TacNet could use (as opposed to a telescopic baton), so I included it.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 20 2013, 04:32 PM
Yes, and those sensors only provide one thing, the ability to mimic the surroundings. How is that, AT ALL, beneficial to someone else. Oh wait, it isn't.
So HOW do your Wired Reflexes tell someone else WHERE they are, exactly? Oh wait, they don't.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 20 2013, 04:37 PM
I'm not sure why those sensors (which have full spatial coverage, which cybereyes don't) wouldn't be able to feed the visual data they capture to the TacNet.
Not "where they are" as in GPS, what they're doing (by nature of transmitting nerve impulses) and the body's status (where each limb is located w.r.t each other). A bit like motion capture for video games.
Also: dude, you don't have to be aggressive, I'm not a professional designer and I asked for feedback, not sarcasm.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 20 2013, 05:19 PM
Not "where they are" as in GPS, what they're doing (by nature of transmitting nerve impulses) and the body's status (where each limb is located w.r.t each other). A bit like motion capture for video games.
Also: dude, you don't have to be aggressive, I'm not a professional designer and I asked for feedback, not sarcasm.
Honestly, don't see any real benefit for the WR/RE Cyberware, for the Tacnet. That is just not useful information. Especially since the 'ware does not provide such information to start with. Motion Capture covers sensors/transmitters on the body that another sensor might see, but it is very specific, and if you are trying to harvest data like that, you will be getting so much data that your processors will be overwhelmed completely, due to the sheer vastness of such data in the world around you at any given time. *shrug*
Apologies... Did not mean to be aggressive.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 20 2013, 06:41 PM
Apologies... Did not mean to be aggressive.
Yeah i don't think wire reflexes would give that useful info for the tacnet. I do think the full coverage chameleon suit sensors would give good info.
I think some of the Cyber ear options might also give good info. Same with Cyber eyes.
How would Cyberlimbs benefit?
As for Drones I think of them as all sensor platforms that would benefit the tacnet. But I think there should be a point of diminishing returns. Basically add too many sensors and you stop getting bonus dice.
Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 21 2013, 12:41 AM
Cyberlimbs can have some sensors implanted in them. Depending on those sensors they too can help provide info. Other than that, I don't think so.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 21 2013, 05:56 AM
I think you're going a bit fast in dismissing the contribution of these pieces of gear to the TacNet, and I'm going to explain why.
IRL, I do data analysis on particle physics and I have a background in control engineering. In both these fields (especially the former), a great deal of time and energy is spent getting more information out of sensor data than would seem obvious. Combining data from different sources, using correlations, calculations and a lot of clever tricks, we're able to get detectors or sensors to tell us a lot more than they were designed to tell.
Wired reflexes sending data to a commlink is quite conceivable. It could send status reports on the type of commands sent to the muscles*, and it could send data concerning the position of the wired reflexes nodes (the existence of those nodes is described in the book)** . Because you don't see how this could be immediately useful doesn't mean it wouldn't be - this is exactly the sort of data I see clever engineers and data analyst using to squeeze a lot more out of a TacNet that one would imagine at first, because those same people (my colleagues) do exactly the same sort of stuff on other instruments that exist today. If you factor in the processing power available to a commlink in 2075 to run correlation calculations, and model simulations, I think this is actually somewhat realistic. Is it technically feasible? I don't know, but I don't know if wired reflexes are feasible in the first place, so I don't see it as such a stretch.
As for the Chameleon suit, sensors are sensors. It stretch credibility a lot more to think that whatever data the suit's sensors are powerful enough to engineer invisibility, but can't be fed to the commlink and can't be used for anything else. This looks a lot like a "it's not usable because reasons" justification. I think that Chameleon suit is such an advanced and *smart* piece of equipment that using it for TacNets make sense.
That said, I'm not against removing these pieces of gear from the list (and perhaps having them left to the GM's taste), but don't dismiss them as necessarily irrelevant, because their inclusion is justifiable.
*If you can know what sort of action someone is going to undertake a few tenths of a second before it's visually obvious, an increase in coordination makes sense to me and I could see a +1 die to reflect that.
**Sure, nothing says these nodes send any information, but nothing explicitely forbids them too. And since there *is* a wireless bonus that already exists per RAW, it looks like wired reflexes were intended to actually send this sort of data.
Posted by: Supine Jul 21 2013, 06:37 AM
To be honest, I haven't read deeply into this thread as about halfway through it I got hit by all the things I've always wanted Tacnets to be, all at once, and my excitement hurried me down the page to the comment section about as fast as I could skim through the posts. That said, I'm very interested to see where your ideas are going and I'll try my best to contribute to them-- Right after I get my fill of brainstorming, that is.
When I first head of tacnets, I envisioned a Tom-Clancy milspec piece of information-gathering equipment, a black box meant to interpret sensor information and distribute it across the battlefield. Early in the thread, I saw it compared to the Commander mode in Battlefield 4. I would rather argue that it is more like the 3D Spotting system. In case a few of the people reading this haven't played, the spotting system allows one soldier to hit a button to 'spot' an enemy soldier or vehicle. Once spotted, a bright orange symbol floats over his head and points him out to everyone else, adding a little bit of tactical gameplay that even the one Recon player who's sitting on a rock and firing aimlessly can contribute to. The sheer usefulness of it is substantial, and since it relies on a HUD that doesn't exist in real life (but does certainly exist in Shadowrun), it's a mechanism that I can definitely try and incorporate.
This leads to the part of my post that actually has to do with Tacnets. I envision two sides to it: The first, a sensor suite that picks up information from each soldier, vehicle, hacked camera and drone that it can find. The second, a piece of security hardware that allows the decker to treat his team's individual PANs as if they're slaved to his Tacnet. The first is the important one, and the one I'll spend my time talking about. The second is pretty straightforward, and I still haven't quite convinced myself that it doesn't stem from a misunderstanding of the Matrix rules.
The use of a tacnet as a sensor suite wouldn't be based on a dicepool or anything by my model. Instead, the only thing that matters to the Tacnet itself (and by extention the DM's struggle to keep track of it) is what it knows, and what it does not. If the tacnet knows the location of its enemies, then it can give that information to everyone connected, and they can get a hefty Perception bonus (or whatever, I'll talk about possible applications later). If it doesn't know, then it can't give a bonus. It's as simple as that. No need to give overarching dicepools to simulate in the abstract, no need to toss +1 and +2 modifiers at everything under the sun, in general, less bloat. Or at least, that's the idea. The Tacnet would exist as a way of preventing the team from needing to communicate such things as where enemies and important items are, how to navigate the area, and other things that are better done by a computer, leaving the team's mouths free to say more important things. It would have strictly gamist applications, too: By spotting the enemies, it could eliminate a bunch of Perception Tests and assist in the rest. By measuring ranges to the targets it could provide a bonus to long-range attacks. It could do the targeting for a drone, allowing it to bypass the Sensor Test and go straight to the "fire" stage of its plan. That isn't strictly the point, however. It would exist mainly as a tool of information. Information being the first and greatest tool of the decker, and the most revolutionary portion of the Internet and Matrix themselves, I think that fits the Decker's role very well.
On that note, it's time for me to lay down the list of things that I've envisioned a tacnet being used for. Some of these would be impractical, quasi-practical, or simply not as useful as I hope; I assume you'll tell me if they are. I also assume you'll figure out your own ways that a tacnet would be an advantage on a battlefield, and if you think that it's the kind of thing you can write in a rulebook or use on a run, I hope you'll post it. Even if nobody cares about my little pipe dream I've posted, I might use them in the houserule I've just now convinced myself to write. All of these rules are presented in the abstract, without any numbers or crunch to apply them to a game. That would be decided later.
Proposed bonuses/uses:
Spotting the enemy: By making enemies in the tacnet's view sufficiently obvious, the tacnet makes visual Perception Tests to see enemies unnecessary. Enemies are either marked by software or an operator (I haven't decided).
Virtual Rangefinder: By using visual cues and any other information it's gathered, the tacnet provides soldiers with distances to important markers and enemies.
Firing Through Cover: If the tacnet has enough data to infer an absolute location of an enemy who is obscured by cover, the enemy's location is marked so that the soldier can fire through the enemy's cover. Also applies to shooting through walls, doors, floors, and whatever else.
Mapping: With enough data, the tacnet can provide a three-dimensional virtual map of the location in question. An ultrasound sensor might be enough for this to work, or UWB Radar. A single trideo feed would probably not.
Trap Marking: Any security measures noticed by the tacnet or its operator can be marked to the soldiers. Tripwires and lasers would be clearly marked, cameras spotted (perhaps with a rough estimate of their field of view, if such information can be inferred). Passive security measures like locks could also be marked, with any other information the tacnet has, such as whether a door is locked.
Targeting: Targeting could be run through the tacnet rather than the drone, allowing for example one drone to make the active targeting Sensor Test and another to take the shot. This could help in situations where the drone taking the shot could not get a sensor lock, such as when your Fly-Spy has a clear line of sight and your Roto-Drone's is obscured by trees.
Flare Protection: If someone fires a flare and your whole team doesn't have flare compensation, the tacnet could turn the NV off in time to save the team's precious eyes.
Weapon/Vehicle ID: For those cases where it's useful to know whether the troll's carrying a squirtgun or an Assault Cannon, the tacnet could tell the soldiers what's slinging the bullets. It could work for drones and vehicles too.
Information-Gathering: Noting the license plate of the unidentified van driving off is the example I though of, but things like reading SIN chips, matching names to facial-recognition softwares, naming the song playing at the bar tonight, and anything else that relies on simple info would fall under the same idea.
I'll stop there for fear of running out of steam and edit this post if I get enlightened later. It should probably be noted that this would likely end up being a fairly high-end piece of equipment, not available at chargen and with a price tag prohibitive up until the point where the team can buy military-level gear. With that in mind, it won't do much to solve the problems of deckers being left helpless in certain missions until the team can actually obtain and use it. A tacnet, under this system, would serve as a comprehensive and complete network of sensors in combination with a powerful piece of hardware, made with the sole purpose of leaving nothing unknown to its user. Then again, it could be priced competitively, since it would largely depend on how much a decker is willing to spend on sensors in order to be more useful. Coincidentally, that would make the Decker/Rigger duo very powerful indeed if they both spent money in the right place. If the runners' enemies use tacnets to boost their surveillance capabilities, it would certainly make infiltrators' job difficult and a decker insanely useful to have on heist jobs. And on that note, if the runners end up fighting 2075 military teams with money on their side, it can be assumed that a to-of-the-line tacnet and sensor array would be a significant part of the enemy's tactics.
[EDIT: I posted this and immediately realized that I'd forgotten to weigh in the current argument over what a tacnet can and cannot use as a sensor. I believe that it goes both ways. There is no reason a chameleon suit wouldn't be able to give some sorts of data to the tacnet. It might even have certain camera angles that prove extremely useful to a tacnet's operator. However, using things for uses other than those they were designed for tends to have its hiccups. The suit, for one, might not have the processing power to both use and send the data it has at the same time. For another, the sensors would almost certainly be specialized, and changing the purpose of those sensors would probably show that. The sensors wouldn't be as good as a decent camera for doing simple trideo recording, for the same reasons you probably can't slap together a ball of trid sensors onto a RP coated suit and call it a day. This could be reflected by a -1 or -2 penalty in gamist terms, although I'm not yet familiar enough with the 5th edition crunch to say what number is more or less fair than another. In the end, the tacnets you see in-game would probably tend to be a mix of high-end sensors and those jury-rigged from smartguns and chameleon suits, because on the one hand, deckers like reliability, while on the other, runners tend to be just a little less wealthy than they desire.]
[EDIT: As for the initial subject of the thread, I don't have a seething hatred for the wireless bonuses as many of you seem to. While some may try and rules-lawyer about the meaning of it all, it's a generally regarded concept that common sense comes before RAW. In the case of wireless bonuses, that means that rather than bonuses requiring an active Matrix connection no matter what, it makes perfect sense for a character to be able to use the wireless Smartgun mag ejection & fire mode bonuses if he has any sort of link to the gun. The only problem I have with the bonuses that I've seen so far is the induction-charging bonuses on shock gloves and the shock baton. Magnetic induction doesn't work via wi-fi, after all. That's a simulationist problem for simulationists to complain about, however.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 23 2013, 04:45 AM
When I first head of tacnets, I envisioned a Tom-Clancy milspec piece of information-gathering equipment, a black box meant to interpret sensor information and distribute it across the battlefield. Early in the thread, I saw it compared to the Commander mode in Battlefield 4. I would rather argue that it is more like the 3D Spotting system. In case a few of the people reading this haven't played, the spotting system allows one soldier to hit a button to 'spot' an enemy soldier or vehicle. Once spotted, a bright orange symbol floats over his head and points him out to everyone else, adding a little bit of tactical gameplay that even the one Recon player who's sitting on a rock and firing aimlessly can contribute to. The sheer usefulness of it is substantial, and since it relies on a HUD that doesn't exist in real life (but does certainly exist in Shadowrun), it's a mechanism that I can definitely try and incorporate.
This leads to the part of my post that actually has to do with Tacnets. I envision two sides to it: The first, a sensor suite that picks up information from each soldier, vehicle, hacked camera and drone that it can find. The second, a piece of security hardware that allows the decker to treat his team's individual PANs as if they're slaved to his Tacnet. The first is the important one, and the one I'll spend my time talking about. The second is pretty straightforward, and I still haven't quite convinced myself that it doesn't stem from a misunderstanding of the Matrix rules.
The use of a tacnet as a sensor suite wouldn't be based on a dicepool or anything by my model. Instead, the only thing that matters to the Tacnet itself (and by extention the DM's struggle to keep track of it) is what it knows, and what it does not. If the tacnet knows the location of its enemies, then it can give that information to everyone connected, and they can get a hefty Perception bonus (or whatever, I'll talk about possible applications later). If it doesn't know, then it can't give a bonus. It's as simple as that. No need to give overarching dicepools to simulate in the abstract, no need to toss +1 and +2 modifiers at everything under the sun, in general, less bloat. Or at least, that's the idea. The Tacnet would exist as a way of preventing the team from needing to communicate such things as where enemies and important items are, how to navigate the area, and other things that are better done by a computer, leaving the team's mouths free to say more important things. It would have strictly gamist applications, too: By spotting the enemies, it could eliminate a bunch of Perception Tests and assist in the rest. By measuring ranges to the targets it could provide a bonus to long-range attacks. It could do the targeting for a drone, allowing it to bypass the Sensor Test and go straight to the "fire" stage of its plan. That isn't strictly the point, however. It would exist mainly as a tool of information. Information being the first and greatest tool of the decker, and the most revolutionary portion of the Internet and Matrix themselves, I think that fits the Decker's role very well.
On that note, it's time for me to lay down the list of things that I've envisioned a tacnet being used for. Some of these would be impractical, quasi-practical, or simply not as useful as I hope; I assume you'll tell me if they are. I also assume you'll figure out your own ways that a tacnet would be an advantage on a battlefield, and if you think that it's the kind of thing you can write in a rulebook or use on a run, I hope you'll post it. Even if nobody cares about my little pipe dream I've posted, I might use them in the houserule I've just now convinced myself to write. All of these rules are presented in the abstract, without any numbers or crunch to apply them to a game. That would be decided later.
Proposed bonuses/uses:
Spotting the enemy: By making enemies in the tacnet's view sufficiently obvious, the tacnet makes visual Perception Tests to see enemies unnecessary. Enemies are either marked by software or an operator (I haven't decided).
Virtual Rangefinder: By using visual cues and any other information it's gathered, the tacnet provides soldiers with distances to important markers and enemies.
Firing Through Cover: If the tacnet has enough data to infer an absolute location of an enemy who is obscured by cover, the enemy's location is marked so that the soldier can fire through the enemy's cover. Also applies to shooting through walls, doors, floors, and whatever else.
Mapping: With enough data, the tacnet can provide a three-dimensional virtual map of the location in question. An ultrasound sensor might be enough for this to work, or UWB Radar. A single trideo feed would probably not.
Trap Marking: Any security measures noticed by the tacnet or its operator can be marked to the soldiers. Tripwires and lasers would be clearly marked, cameras spotted (perhaps with a rough estimate of their field of view, if such information can be inferred). Passive security measures like locks could also be marked, with any other information the tacnet has, such as whether a door is locked.
Targeting: Targeting could be run through the tacnet rather than the drone, allowing for example one drone to make the active targeting Sensor Test and another to take the shot. This could help in situations where the drone taking the shot could not get a sensor lock, such as when your Fly-Spy has a clear line of sight and your Roto-Drone's is obscured by trees.
Flare Protection: If someone fires a flare and your whole team doesn't have flare compensation, the tacnet could turn the NV off in time to save the team's precious eyes.
Weapon/Vehicle ID: For those cases where it's useful to know whether the troll's carrying a squirtgun or an Assault Cannon, the tacnet could tell the soldiers what's slinging the bullets. It could work for drones and vehicles too.
Information-Gathering: Noting the license plate of the unidentified van driving off is the example I though of, but things like reading SIN chips, matching names to facial-recognition softwares, naming the song playing at the bar tonight, and anything else that relies on simple info would fall under the same idea.
I'll stop there for fear of running out of steam and edit this post if I get enlightened later. It should probably be noted that this would likely end up being a fairly high-end piece of equipment, not available at chargen and with a price tag prohibitive up until the point where the team can buy military-level gear. With that in mind, it won't do much to solve the problems of deckers being left helpless in certain missions until the team can actually obtain and use it. A tacnet, under this system, would serve as a comprehensive and complete network of sensors in combination with a powerful piece of hardware, made with the sole purpose of leaving nothing unknown to its user. Then again, it could be priced competitively, since it would largely depend on how much a decker is willing to spend on sensors in order to be more useful. Coincidentally, that would make the Decker/Rigger duo very powerful indeed if they both spent money in the right place. If the runners' enemies use tacnets to boost their surveillance capabilities, it would certainly make infiltrators' job difficult and a decker insanely useful to have on heist jobs. And on that note, if the runners end up fighting 2075 military teams with money on their side, it can be assumed that a to-of-the-line tacnet and sensor array would be a significant part of the enemy's tactics.
[EDIT: I posted this and immediately realized that I'd forgotten to weigh in the current argument over what a tacnet can and cannot use as a sensor. I believe that it goes both ways. There is no reason a chameleon suit wouldn't be able to give some sorts of data to the tacnet. It might even have certain camera angles that prove extremely useful to a tacnet's operator. However, using things for uses other than those they were designed for tends to have its hiccups. The suit, for one, might not have the processing power to both use and send the data it has at the same time. For another, the sensors would almost certainly be specialized, and changing the purpose of those sensors would probably show that. The sensors wouldn't be as good as a decent camera for doing simple trideo recording, for the same reasons you probably can't slap together a ball of trid sensors onto a RP coated suit and call it a day. This could be reflected by a -1 or -2 penalty in gamist terms, although I'm not yet familiar enough with the 5th edition crunch to say what number is more or less fair than another. In the end, the tacnets you see in-game would probably tend to be a mix of high-end sensors and those jury-rigged from smartguns and chameleon suits, because on the one hand, deckers like reliability, while on the other, runners tend to be just a little less wealthy than they desire.]
[EDIT: As for the initial subject of the thread, I don't have a seething hatred for the wireless bonuses as many of you seem to. While some may try and rules-lawyer about the meaning of it all, it's a generally regarded concept that common sense comes before RAW. In the case of wireless bonuses, that means that rather than bonuses requiring an active Matrix connection no matter what, it makes perfect sense for a character to be able to use the wireless Smartgun mag ejection & fire mode bonuses if he has any sort of link to the gun. The only problem I have with the bonuses that I've seen so far is the induction-charging bonuses on shock gloves and the shock baton. Magnetic induction doesn't work via wi-fi, after all. That's a simulationist problem for simulationists to complain about, however.
I like most of what you said. I would say a user or software can mark potential targets.
How would you implement it? as a dice pool seems to be a good way to do it.
The reason I don't like wireless bonuses. Is not because the concept is bad. but because what worked before with out the matrix now requires the matrix. Which is stupid. Now if their was new functionality that it actually made sense for the matrix to be needed I would be fine with it. I also would run your cyberware through your comlink. Because just like to day you don't stick your computer straight into the net if you have a brain. you don't stick your cyberware straight on to the net. you use a datajack to your comlink.
Posted by: RHat Jul 23 2013, 07:47 AM
It should be made perfectly clear that based on what we've been told, that has nothing to do with the wireless bonuses. That functionality was removed at a stage of development that preceded the concept of wireless bonuses. I do not think it was a good idea to restore that old funtionality with wireless bonuses (make a damn decision and stick with it already), but if that wasn't done there would be, for example, no way under the rules to get bonus dice from a smartlink or to have WR/RE stack.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 23 2013, 01:18 PM
Sure there would. DNI them together and let them share processing power (after all, that is the logic of the wireless bonus as presented, just sharing Matrix processing power, rather than their own onboard processing). Just like Before. Problem Solved. WITHOUT the stupidity of non-sensical Wireless Bonuses.
Posted by: RHat Jul 23 2013, 05:30 PM
... You've missed the point. If the Smartlink wireless bonus didn't exist or didn't' offer bonus dice, there would be no way in the SR5 rules to get bonus dice from a Smartlink.
And you're assuming that your commlink has a lot more processing power going spare than is reasonable to assume - and while I would like to see them add an option to get some wireless bonuses to work locally later on (such as commlink programs - the trick being that you'd be limited in how many you can run and this limiter would be shared between Wireless Bonus Replacements, Sensor Software, and whatever else), without induction pads or skinlinks being in play (which under the present rules they are not) wiring your gun is completely impractical.
Posted by: Medicineman Jul 23 2013, 05:39 PM
???
It existed before !
Why don't you want to give Smartlink in SR5 the same Bonus as in 4A ?
(Plus the heightened Accuracy )
with the same Dance as before
Medicineman
Posted by: RHat Jul 23 2013, 05:44 PM
Reasons are not an element of the point. From what we've been told, smartlinks lost their dice bonus in favour of the Accuracy bonus much earlier in the development cycle than wireless bonuses even existed. Meaning that smartlinks not giving dice by default has nothing at all to do with wireless bonuses.
I'm not weighing in on whether this is right or wrong, but I am saying it is mistaken to blame wireless bonuses for things like the change to smartguns.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 23 2013, 06:19 PM
I'm not weighing in on whether this is right or wrong, but I am saying it is mistaken to blame wireless bonuses for things like the change to smartguns.
Never blamed them for the change to Smartguns. I have placed the onus of Blame upon them because Wireless Bonuses were so poorly implemented as to be asanine. Using the Smartlink to gain an increase in Limit works just fine, and does not need wireless, so the bonus dice are indeed irrelevent, as you say. And are incapable of being bricked when wireless is removed. My point being that the "Incentive" to go wireless is not hthere, and thus, many (if not most) will not even bother, because the bonuses themselves are lackluster and not even interesting enough to tempt the drawbacks of being online.
"Hmmmm... Lets see, I can get +2 Dice or be completely immune to the Decker screwing with my stuff. Really? That is a no brainer."
Especially since the design goal of limiting starting DP's did not really work out so well.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 23 2013, 06:46 PM
You mean, the same commlinks that could host AI-level stuff 5 years previously?
Posted by: Epicedion Jul 23 2013, 07:21 PM
Yes, some of the old stuff was really dumb.
Posted by: Medicineman Jul 23 2013, 07:38 PM
not 5 Years ,more like 5 Days or Weeks
SR4A ends in December 2074 and SR5 starts in January 2075
He who Dances for Years
Medicineman
Posted by: RHat Jul 23 2013, 07:39 PM
"Hmmmm... Lets see, I can get +2 Dice or be completely immune to the Decker screwing with my stuff. Really? That is a no brainer."
Especially since the design goal of limiting starting DP's did not really work out so well.
Certainly the implementation could be much improved. However, the incentive IS there. You are free to decide it is insufficient. For the wireless bonuses to accomplish their goal, you are not required to decide that the incentive is sufficient for you, personally, to take the risk. The fact that you have to sacrifice for the security of going EM-dark is a good thing, design wise. And it's not just +2 Dice. You'd need to consider and weigh the totality of the wireless bonuses on the gear that you have. Do you want to get +3 dice to visual and audio perception, +2 to shooting, to be able to activate your various deployables as a free action, get extra dice to your Sneaking tests... And so on. At a certain point, you're either going to trust in your defenses or you aren't.
Posted by: Sendaz Jul 23 2013, 08:02 PM
I think once we get more comfortable with the decking bits, then teams may use some items under the protection of the decker in certain circumstances.
It just seems to me there should be more cutouts. I mean its from Master to Slave devices, once you crack the master you are running amok. In the old hacking days, you had to bust in then you ran around inside(effectively mark /hack the master), but you still had to contend with various defences within the host depending on the level of data you were trying to lift. Still trying to wrap my head around it all and maybe this is covered by it, but devices and comms maybe need the capacity to carry their own added layers of protection/IC or even defaults that if certain alerts are raised by the master system they activate the added defences or drop out. Sort of a runner version of the old sheaf response for hosts.
Posted by: RHat Jul 23 2013, 08:10 PM
That might not be a bad thing to put in for the Matrix book - though, it's worth keeping in mind that part of the goal was a pretty simple system overall, so they might be hesitant to add too much more complication.
Posted by: Bigity Jul 23 2013, 08:33 PM
I am wondering (and I haven't played 4E, but I did read through some of the splat books), how much harder is it to actually deck something?
Are the risks of running wireless on being exaggerated by the ease of hacking devices in SR4A in comparison to SR5? Or is it pretty much the same?
Posted by: RHat Jul 23 2013, 08:36 PM
It depends on a pretty wide array of factors. It's all opposed tests now, though, and losing them SUCKS (either the target gets a mark on you, or you eat unresistable Matrix damage, which to make things worse goes directly to Stun for technomancers - also, if a decker fills his Matrix Damage Track, his deck is bricked). Plus there's the whole thing with Overwatch Score. If you're stuff is reasonably well defended, it's going to be difficult.
Posted by: Bigity Jul 23 2013, 08:38 PM
Thanks, I've gotten the PDF, but haven't gotten past the intro chapter still.
(damn you Metro 2033!)
So it seems having a team decker on defense makes things alot more difficult to hack, which maybe balances out the risks vs rewards for the wireless bonuses?
I need to read the damn book already but all the errata stuff really put me off.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 23 2013, 08:52 PM
Or dump the who wireless bonus idea entirely.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 23 2013, 09:21 PM
Which is effectively the same thing. If everyone (professional) goes Dark, there is no need for Wireless bonuses at all. *shrug*
Of course, they were only a meta-construct to give the Decker something to do with his unused time in combat... Never mind that I have YET to see a Hacker/Decker with Unused Time in Combat.
Let them waste their time with me, hunting for Wireless signatures. They aren't going to find any.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 24 2013, 08:21 AM
Which is how they used to work. WR/RE worked fine with absolutely no wireless connection in the previous edition. The wireless bonus should be something new that never existed before and would actually make sense to need a network connection. The way wireless bonuses work now do not make any sense at all.
Posted by: SpellBinder Jul 24 2013, 04:11 PM
I also find it interesting that a device you are holding or last used magically somehow gets to use your Mental attributes in the opposed tests. Were the developers assuming that everyone and their grandmothers were using sim modules and trodes along with whatever wireless gear they have?
Posted by: Sendaz Jul 24 2013, 04:13 PM
'Your Mama uses Trodes' sounds like smack talk
Posted by: Blade Jul 24 2013, 04:17 PM
I think that the most mentally good you are the better you take care of your matrix security. Either that or Dwarf druids are just very concerned about their Matrix security.
Posted by: Jaid Jul 24 2013, 07:11 PM
except that a device that is completely unguarded uses it's own device rating... which in some cases can be much better than using your mental stats.
Posted by: Sendaz Jul 24 2013, 07:17 PM
Heeeeyyy.. so when he said Joe was dumber than a box of wireless rocks, he wasn't kidding?
Posted by: RHat Jul 24 2013, 08:49 PM
The assumption, I think, is that you've done something to deviate from factory defaults (even including slaving) that means that you've set up your own security. Of course, by that logic, it should be possible to get the hacker to set up your security for you and thus have it all use his mental attributes...
Posted by: Jaid Jul 24 2013, 09:23 PM
by that logic, it should also be possible to just leave your security settings on the factory defaults if that's the case. given the relative rarity of hackers with log/int/wil 7 compared to rating 7 commlinks (which probably shouldn't exist at all, given that *spaceships* aren't even rating 7), being able to choose to use the factory defaults is much better in most cases.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 24 2013, 10:56 PM
Can we get back to our Tacnet project? i like how it is shaping up. I was hoping to hear how Supine would do things mechanically. Because maybe they having something better than the dice pool option... So far the dice pool idea seems to work best.
Posted by: RHat Jul 25 2013, 12:11 AM
Except not. At that point, for example, you don't get to slave anything to your commlink and it has only its own firewall to defend with, not the commlink's.
Posted by: Supine Jul 25 2013, 01:25 AM
How would you implement it? as a dice pool seems to be a good way to do it.
The reason I don't like wireless bonuses. Is not because the concept is bad. but because what worked before with out the matrix now requires the matrix. Which is stupid. Now if their was new functionality that it actually made sense for the matrix to be needed I would be fine with it. I also would run your cyberware through your comlink. Because just like to day you don't stick your computer straight into the net if you have a brain. you don't stick your cyberware straight on to the net. you use a datajack to your comlink.
I wouldn't implement a single dicepool that applies to all tests of X variety, or whatever. It seems counter-intuitive to apply a physical bonus because the player knows something-- However, there are things that it would be able to do, in pure numbers. For one, if it's able to point out the location of an enemy you wouldn't otherwise be able to see (because he's behind a wall or obscured by smoke or whatever), then it could lower or remove the appropriate modifiers. I'd shy away from giving it many new kinds of statistics other than those we already have for Matrix gear, like a dicepool of its own, or something of that sort, because it would end up over-complicating the issue, and without a lot of care, it would assume a lot of false equivalences the same way statistics tend to do for everything else.
For me, though, the issue with wireless bonuses is firstly that many of them ignore in-universe and real-life science, and secondly because it assumes that the minor bonuses that it applies are actually worth keeping track of for game purposes, which I don't believe they are. I have a feeling I'll be messing with these rules quite a bit in the future.
In response to your later post, I think it would require quite a bit of effort, not that I'm not willing to put that effort towards it. There would be a number of programs that would only work for Tacnets, and there would be certain types of information that only certain types of sensors can gather, interpret, and relay. I'll definitely need some time to brew some ideas for all of it.
Posted by: Jaid Jul 25 2013, 03:14 AM
the device rating rule also applies if the device is absolutely 100% not able to be defended by it's owner at the time of the attack. so obviously the factory settings for security can still work just fine even when devices are slaved to it.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 25 2013, 07:22 AM
For me, though, the issue with wireless bonuses is firstly that many of them ignore in-universe and real-life science, and secondly because it assumes that the minor bonuses that it applies are actually worth keeping track of for game purposes, which I don't believe they are. I have a feeling I'll be messing with these rules quite a bit in the future.
In response to your later post, I think it would require quite a bit of effort, not that I'm not willing to put that effort towards it. There would be a number of programs that would only work for Tacnets, and there would be certain types of information that only certain types of sensors can gather, interpret, and relay. I'll definitely need some time to brew some ideas for all of it.
The dice pool method makes for a nice simple method of tracking things. Your way has you tracking all sorts of plusses and minuses and does not make for a tidy way of giving a method for hacking your opponent's tacnet.
Posted by: Supine Jul 25 2013, 07:57 AM
So you'd have a tacnet be the tool used to hack other tacnets? I would think the cyberdeck keeps that job, while the tacnet gets a hardware firewall or something of that nature. My only issue with the dicepool method is that it tends to paint in broad strokes where it might not necessarily make sense to do so. Keeping track of the amount of sensors attached to it and applying a bonus isn't really that bad, no, but it's not a very intuitive way of doing RPG math, so I try my best to avoid it. It's easier to think in terms of "can the tacnet see that? Yeah, there's a drone right over there. Apply the +2 to perception of whatever" than to do that, at least the way I see it. I'm also all for streamlining the bonuses that are suggested, but at the same time this has the potential to be one of the decker's more important jobs, so perhaps the complexity should be there in the bonuses. I've also been toying with the idea of how to run software on it, but I haven't done too much thinking as of yet.
Posted by: cryptoknight Jul 25 2013, 01:21 PM
i like how it is shaping up. I was hoping to hear how Supine would do things mechanically. Because maybe they having something better than the dice pool option... So far the dice pool idea seems to work best.Sure... what about Marks on the Tacnet that increase the cost of using a die from the pool?
i.e. I get 2 marks onto the opposition's tacnet. Taking a die from the tacnet now costs 3 from the pool
or perhaps have this as a third option?
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 25 2013, 05:59 PM
Have you been reading this thread at all? I suggest you start at the beginning because i don't think you are on the same page as the rest of us. I early on set some design goals. One of them that a tacnet be hackable by deckers thus giving deckers things to do in combat. Instead of using wireless bonuses which all do not make sense. .
Posted by: Supine Jul 25 2013, 09:43 PM
I was saying that it shouldn't replace the entire idea of the cyberdeck-- Whether it's a seperate hardware tool, or a piece of software on the deck, it shouldn't change the rules of hacking. Yes, it would be hackable, but so is everything else. Perhaps with one or two marks on a tacnet, the decker could use the sensors available on the opposing net.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 25 2013, 10:55 PM
But Cyberware should not be on the matrix. Cyberware has no need to be on the Matrix. But if you are running a Tacnet you can run a datajack to your comlink that is running Tacnet software and share your feed.
Posted by: Werewindlefr Jul 26 2013, 06:32 AM
The point being that some cyberware can contribute to the TacNet, but needs to communicate with the TacNet to do so. Thus, there is incentive for exposing you stuff.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 26 2013, 07:35 AM
Wrong. Wrong Methodology and thinking.
The tacnet is the target. Not the cyberware. The tacnet is where you can screw things over in a far more effective manner than bricking one members cyber arm. Screw the tacnet and you screw the whole team. Get them shooting at their own members etc. Much more useful than hacking one persons eyes.
The point is not exposing cyberware. As no one would do that. You hook your cyberware to you comlink via DNI or skinlink etc. The comlink acts as your firewall and tacnet node. Hacking that nodes tacnet software to trasmit bad data or hacking the Deckers deck with the master node makes much more sense.
Do you guys plug your computer straight into the internet? or do you use a router because plugging a computer straight into the internet is a stupid idea? Why would you treat your cyberware any different than you treat your computer? Or would you like your cyberware infected by a random virus? Does that sound like a good way to treat that expensive cyberware?
Posted by: Jaid Jul 26 2013, 08:15 AM
you seem to have misunderstood how the matrix works in SR5. it doesn't matter how many things you use in between a device and everything else. the entire matrix is based on the fact that you can bounce your signal through everyone else's stuff. it's just how the matrix works in SR5.
you can let your cyberware benefit from tougher security on your commlink (if you have one) or a cyberdeck (if you have one), or even someone else's commlink or cyberdeck, by slaving it (obviously, this requires some level of trust), but if it's talking over the matrix, it can be talked to via the matrix, without having to first hack anything else.
and frankly, given a choice between giving each member of a tacnet some minor penalties or largely shutting down some key member of the tacnet (say, a street sam who has crazy wired reflexes and a much larger dicepool and better weapons than the rest of the team) by bricking their eyes or something like that.
mind you, if they're not idiots, they won't put their eyes online to be bricked, whether it helps with the tacnet or not (the same benefits should be available from attaching a camera to your helmet or something like that), but if they do, i'd totally shut them down rather than worry about the decker.
and i would definitely strongly consider bricking a control rig if there was one, especially if the rigger is piloting a really scary drone or something.
i don't think it would be an always-obvious choice, and sometimes there wouldn't be any devices worth bricking connected to a tacnet (in fact, most often there won't be - people who use tacnets are generally people who need to worry about getting hacked far more than the average person). but if there was, i could definitely see beginning with shutting down whatever that device is.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 26 2013, 06:49 PM
you can let your cyberware benefit from tougher security on your commlink (if you have one) or a cyberdeck (if you have one), or even someone else's commlink or cyberdeck, by slaving it (obviously, this requires some level of trust), but if it's talking over the matrix, it can be talked to via the matrix, without having to first hack anything else.
and frankly, given a choice between giving each member of a tacnet some minor penalties or largely shutting down some key member of the tacnet (say, a street sam who has crazy wired reflexes and a much larger dicepool and better weapons than the rest of the team) by bricking their eyes or something like that.
mind you, if they're not idiots, they won't put their eyes online to be bricked, whether it helps with the tacnet or not (the same benefits should be available from attaching a camera to your helmet or something like that), but if they do, i'd totally shut them down rather than worry about the decker.
and i would definitely strongly consider bricking a control rig if there was one, especially if the rigger is piloting a really scary drone or something.
i don't think it would be an always-obvious choice, and sometimes there wouldn't be any devices worth bricking connected to a tacnet (in fact, most often there won't be - people who use tacnets are generally people who need to worry about getting hacked far more than the average person). but if there was, i could definitely see beginning with shutting down whatever that device is.
Proof that the people who wrote the book know nothing about computer security. I don't care how they claim the matrix works. Only an idiot would design a network in that insecure method. What you are describing is less secure not more secure. Which belies the whole premise of the new matrix being more secure.
Posted by: Supine Jul 26 2013, 07:32 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9232477/Pacemaker_hack_can_deliver_deadly_830_volt_jolt
Posted by: Jaid Jul 26 2013, 07:34 PM
the matrix has a 100% detection rate and a guaranteed boot to the head for anyone who doesn't get out soon enough as far as hacking is concerned.
that's pretty damned good.
and as far as designing everything to pass everything along, given the rate at which they're having to replace the matrix, i'd say a solution where your customers buy all the infrastructure probably sounds pretty good to them. it's less secure for anyone who puts something on the matrix that really shouldn't be. it's a heck of a lot safer for the corps, and for people who aren't crazy enough to have their cybereyes broadcasting 24/7 when they are in a profession that can expect to be targeted by malicious hackers.
no cybereyes connected to the matrix 100% of the time, no worry about your cybereyes being hacked. problem solved.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 26 2013, 08:10 PM
Unfortunately, the rationale for the way that the new Matrix is designed is so you can be hacked (which is counter-intuitive to having a secure matrix). They WANT you to go online so the Hacker has something to actually screw with. If you play the professional, who gives the middle finger to the corps by not putting their stuff onlne, the Hacker gets nothing to hack, and they are a sad panda. Never mind that there are other things that a Hacker can do other than screw with peoples cyberware.
And if you do not put stuff on the matrix, then their design goal has failed. Looks like they failed for any of my characters, as I see absolutely NO benefit to havig stuff online (especially since you do not even have to get online for communications, apparently). *shrug*
Posted by: Medicineman Jul 26 2013, 09:30 PM
You forgot Shuriken/throwing Knifes .
You get a Helluva Bonus to hit when You have wireless shuriken.
And I wonder what happens if a Hacker Hacks them....
with a Helluva Dance
Medicineman
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 27 2013, 08:13 PM
You get a Helluva Bonus to hit when You have wireless shuriken.
And I wonder what happens if a Hacker Hacks them....
with a Helluva Dance
Medicineman
*Shakes Head* The absurdity of it all.
Posted by: Medicineman Jul 27 2013, 08:29 PM
naaaahhh 
What was it that Wolverine would say ....
"You ain't seen nuthin' yet, Bub"
(because I bet a Dollar that CGL won't disappoint us with inventing even bigger absurdities )
Hough!
Medicineman
Posted by: Medicineman Jul 27 2013, 09:26 PM
Oh, I got a good one....
Now Recoil is per person, not per weapon !
And carries over to the next Iniphase !
That means if I have (f.E.) an Ingram Smart X (with recoil 5) in my right hand an an Ares Predator in my left and shoot 10 Bullets from the ISX in my first Iniphase
and in my next iniphase I shoot my Ares Predator I'm at -6 (-5 from the Ingram Smart X and -1 from the AP ) Dice
to Hit
(Or didn't I read the RAW correctly ? please tell me I'm wrong, please, please !)
with a hopefully wrong Dance
Medicineman
Posted by: quentra Jul 28 2013, 01:06 AM
I think that's right, but it resets whenever you take an action that's not shooting. So first phase shoot the Ingram for an FA burst, then second phase, take aim with the Pred before shooting and boom, no recoil.
Posted by: Epicedion Jul 28 2013, 01:33 AM
Now Recoil is per person, not per weapon !
And carries over to the next Iniphase !
That means if I have (f.E.) an Ingram Smart X (with recoil 5) in my right hand an an Ares Predator in my left and shoot 10 Bullets from the ISX in my first Iniphase
and in my next iniphase I shoot my Ares Predator I'm at -6 (-5 from the Ingram Smart X and -1 from the AP ) Dice
to Hit
(Or didn't I read the RAW correctly ? please tell me I'm wrong, please, please !)
with a hopefully wrong Dance
Medicineman
Recoil is per person, not per weapon -- which makes sense, because your arms aren't independently operating drones that don't affect each other.
Resetting recoil requires an action phase not shooting -- not just one action. So take a turn to go defensive, chuck a grenade, reload, punch a dude, whatever, then your recoil resets.
Posted by: Jaid Jul 28 2013, 01:57 AM
Resetting recoil requires an action phase not shooting -- not just one action. So take a turn to go defensive, chuck a grenade, reload, punch a dude, whatever, then your recoil resets.
yeah, that's another example of unclear writing. the freelancers have clarified that taking any simple action in between shooting is intended to reset your recoil.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Jul 28 2013, 02:01 AM
can we get back on topic please?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 28 2013, 02:39 PM
Well, as long as your Recoil Compensators are Wireless Enabled, you should be okay.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 2 2013, 12:43 AM
So did this idea die?
Posted by: Jaid Aug 2 2013, 06:04 AM
no, worse.
it is multiplying.
everyone wants to fix the problem in a different way.
Posted by: DireRadiant Aug 2 2013, 03:57 PM
My favorite Wireless bonus.
Trauma Patches.
Wireless: Instead of making a test, the patient is automatically
stabilized immediately.
I plan on shooting PCs way into overflow, slapping a Trauma patch on em, then ask, "You had Wireless completely disabled right?"
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 2 2013, 04:35 PM
Trauma Patches.
Wireless: Instead of making a test, the patient is automatically
stabilized immediately.
I plan on shooting PCs way into overflow, slapping a Trauma patch on em, then ask, "You had Wireless completely disabled right?"
its not the patient that has to be wireless . Only the Patch !
with a wireless Dance
(as a free Action)
Medicineman
Posted by: Sendaz Aug 2 2013, 05:49 PM
Bricking the Bandages (Trauma Patches)
hmmmmm
Posted by: DWC Aug 2 2013, 05:53 PM
I kind of like the idea of the nanite swarm in the trauma patch that can connect to a proto-AI in a server farm somewhere to improve effectiveness of treatment so much that any sort of adverse situation is compensated for effortlessly.
Posted by: Stahlseele Aug 2 2013, 06:03 PM
not sure if serious . .
Posted by: DWC Aug 2 2013, 06:13 PM
I won't dispute that it's goofy but how else do you rationalize a lump of chemical impregnated adhesive gauze working better when it can connect to the matrix?
Posted by: quentra Aug 2 2013, 06:19 PM
I just don't know anymore. I'm honestly wondering if wireless bonuses should just be switched out for a computer+logic (1) test. 'Hey guy, you successfully used google! Have a bonus!'
Posted by: Ixal Aug 2 2013, 06:20 PM
Because instead of just dumping all chemicals it has into the patient and hopes for the best it transmits the data it collects to a database which picks out the right combination?
Posted by: quentra Aug 2 2013, 06:22 PM
You mean with the wireless-enabled nanobots on the patch, right? Oh wait...
Posted by: Ixal Aug 2 2013, 06:24 PM
And whats that supposed to mean?
Posted by: quentra Aug 2 2013, 06:28 PM
The mechanism for releasing the right amount of drugs calculated by the Googl-sorry, the Matrix? It's a patch. It's literally a piece of fabric slathered with drugs? (with and RF transmitter in it for some god-forsaken reason)
Posted by: Ixal Aug 2 2013, 06:30 PM
And a rifle is a muzzle loader which you manually fill first with black powder and put a lead ball in it.
I don't see how the word "patch" automatically means a low tech fabric strip instead of a plastic strip with several chambers of chemicals which can be opened separately by remote command and a very basic scanner for pulse etc. Especially considering the price tag of a trauma patch.
Posted by: quentra Aug 2 2013, 06:39 PM
500 yen? Yes, that is terribly expensive given that you can also get a rating 2 medkit for the same price with it's own expert system! Crazy. Wonder why the slap patch couldn't have it's own expert system for that price? No one will ever know.
Posted by: Ixal Aug 2 2013, 06:45 PM
Because the patch is still supposed to be small, easily applied and a consumable item so it would take up unnecessary space and reduce the profit margin of the manufacturer. Why put an expert system on every patch instead of just a transmitter and maintain a database?
Posted by: quentra Aug 2 2013, 06:48 PM
A database that couldn't been installed with the patch, right? Or in the case of medkits, 'Rating 3 or lower medkits can fit in a pocket.'
Posted by: Ixal Aug 2 2013, 06:52 PM
It could, see the rating 3 medkit.
But that would cost more in production. And, a medkit also needs a wireless connection to operate on its own, something the trauma patches are supposed to do by design.
So without wireless:
Limit expert systems can provide good guesses and advise, but are not 100% effective and/or still need a trained medical person to make decisions.
When wireless:
They have access to much better expert systems which are too power hungry/not cost effective to put on the patch/medkit itself and a huge medical database enabling the kit/patch to operate itself.
That looks fine to me. I agree that some wireless bonuses are silly, but that one imo isn't.
Posted by: Voran Aug 2 2013, 08:31 PM
If your glass of water is wireless connected, you get a +1 Dp bonus to drink it.
sorry about all the RFID tags though.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 3 2013, 06:30 AM
sorry about all the RFID tags though.
How many times do i have to ask people to get back on target. This topic is not supposed to be a bitch about the lame wireless bonus rules. I agree they suck. We are supposed to be talking about Tacnet rules here.
Posted by: Novocrane Aug 3 2013, 07:05 AM
I bet having a less controversial and more focused thread header would go a long way towards that. Who'd have thunk it?
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 4 2013, 12:48 AM
so you did not read the whole header eh?
Posted by: Novocrane Aug 4 2013, 05:16 AM
Lofi reader, so sue me. It still looks like this even if you back your words up afterwards.
Posted by: RHat Aug 4 2013, 05:18 AM
I think part of the problem is that you've been looking to enforce a design ideal, rather than discuss one - which says to anyone who doesn't completely agree with your notion of the design goals that their suggestions are not welcome. That's NEVER a good way to get brainstorming going.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 4 2013, 07:51 AM
When you go in directions that make absolutely no sense I am going to call you on it.
I am still waiting for the answer to the question do you plug your computer into the raw internet or do you use a router? Why would you expose your cyberware to the raw matrix? Does that seem wise to you? There are basic computer security methods one should use. and those methods would not change. Because it makes financial sense to make one piece of hardware that is hardened vs. attack and route everything else through that. Rather than creating many avenues of attack. You also would not rely on the matrix to connect all of your cyberware together. That is beyond dumb. You would wire it together internally. It is way more expensive to include a radio into every piece of cyberware and have it route all of the data for controlling it via the matrix. Sorry the round trip time alone would be longer than sending data down the internal wire.
And my topic I can set the parameters.
Posted by: RHat Aug 4 2013, 08:06 AM
First, you better believe that those parameters can and will shift on you - nobody gets to control the direction of a discussion, and if you want any good brainstorming to happen, you NEVER make the attempt to do so. And you don't get to be the arbiter of sense. Besides, in brainstorming, you don't say an idea doesn't make sense; that's not helpful. You wait until you have a reasonably developed idea before you look at the question of what you have to do to make it make sense. Note the difference.
And guess what: Slaving is like putting your gear behind a router. If that's the issue to you, then clearly an integral part of the fix is to expand slaving for security purposes. Further, saying that interconnection between isn't a grounds for wireless bonus doesn't mean that there can't be a grounds. For example, there's a lot of reasons why you'd want a visual sensor like cyber-eyes to get online (aspects of distributed computing can come into play to dramatically alter the algorithms that can be used, for example, and external data can allow for something like SR4's Sensor Software but better).
That said: A built-in wireless transceiver in 2074 is gonna be cheap as hell (look at RFIDs), and now that nano-surgery is gone wiring everything together inside your body has gotten a lot more difficult. And given the level of security in SR5's Matrix (a person has to basically be of genius intelligence, furnished with very expensive equipment, and have a highly uncommon set of skills in which they are quite good to be a threat to your ware - or they have to be a technomancer, which is a hell of a lot rarer).
One of the most important things: You're applying modern paradigms. Stop - they are not relevant. The entirety of computing technology, and computer security, was burned to the ground and built back up from scratch TWICE. Other than very high level concepts (which do NOT favour your argument), nothing can be assumed to be the same.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 4 2013, 03:19 PM
You really can't. That is the issue.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 4 2013, 03:22 PM
I am still waiting for the answer to the question do you plug your computer into the raw internet or do you use a router? Why would you expose your cyberware to the raw matrix? Does that seem wise to you? There are basic computer security methods one should use. and those methods would not change. Because it makes financial sense to make one piece of hardware that is hardened vs. attack and route everything else through that. Rather than creating many avenues of attack. You also would not rely on the matrix to connect all of your cyberware together. That is beyond dumb. You would wire it together internally. It is way more expensive to include a radio into every piece of cyberware and have it route all of the data for controlling it via the matrix. Sorry the round trip time alone would be longer than sending data down the internal wire.
And my topic I can set the parameters.
Obviously, in SR5, you plug directly to the Matrix.
Posted by: Ixal Aug 4 2013, 06:04 PM
I am still wondering where the idea comes from that a trauma patch is just a piece of fabric and glue.
Do people also believe that putting a cork into bullet wounds counts as healing?
Posted by: Sendaz Aug 4 2013, 06:23 PM
Depends, is the cork running with wireless on?
Posted by: Ixal Aug 4 2013, 06:34 PM
Of course it has.
It even has a Smartlink for those situations where you really want to impress when opening a bottle of champagne.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 5 2013, 06:46 AM
And guess what: Slaving is like putting your gear behind a router. If that's the issue to you, then clearly an integral part of the fix is to expand slaving for security purposes. Further, saying that interconnection between isn't a grounds for wireless bonus doesn't mean that there can't be a grounds. For example, there's a lot of reasons why you'd want a visual sensor like cyber-eyes to get online (aspects of distributed computing can come into play to dramatically alter the algorithms that can be used, for example, and external data can allow for something like SR4's Sensor Software but better).
That said: A built-in wireless transceiver in 2074 is gonna be cheap as hell (look at RFIDs), and now that nano-surgery is gone wiring everything together inside your body has gotten a lot more difficult. And given the level of security in SR5's Matrix (a person has to basically be of genius intelligence, furnished with very expensive equipment, and have a highly uncommon set of skills in which they are quite good to be a threat to your ware - or they have to be a technomancer, which is a hell of a lot rarer).
One of the most important things: You're applying modern paradigms. Stop - they are not relevant. The entirety of computing technology, and computer security, was burned to the ground and built back up from scratch TWICE. Other than very high level concepts (which do NOT favour your argument), nothing can be assumed to be the same.
The problem is when you turn on wireless on your cyber eyes they are now an avenue for hacking. Turn on the wireless on your wired reflexes oo another door. and it does not matter if the item is slaved. Because the inherent quality to wireless is that just like wifi All you need to hack the network is to have one item have a flaw in its software or hardware and you are open to hacking. Slaving will do ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent that. Physically wiring things together is the only way to insure security. you plug your comlink into your datajack. And that is how you get connectivity and security for your cyberware. Any other method leads to massive security risk and is outright stupid and no shadowrunner would do it any other way. sorry. You can keep trying to sell the idea to me but it will always fall flat on its face for the simple reason more wireless transmitters mean more ways to get hacked. And only an idiot would open themselves up to that kind of hacking. Slaving does not fix the problem.
Fundamental security methodology will not change. It has not changed in thousands of years. The premise of 5th on wireless is flawed at its core. Think about it... The claim is we want to make things more hackable. So we are going to force a flawed security model on the player base to make gear more hackable... And then you are going to try and claim the security is fine. It obviously is not fine because the goal is to make things more hackable. Your logic is circular and flawed at its very core and prove my thinking is actually the method that would be used. Not 5ths. Because a corporation sure as hell is not going to rewrite the matrix to make it less secure for their security teams...Which is just what you are trying to sell.
Posted by: RHat Aug 5 2013, 06:54 AM
Fundamental security methodology is to find the balance point between vulnerability and usability. If you gain enough benefit from setting your cybereyes to wireless, fundamental security methodology says you do it, and secure it as best as you can.
Posted by: Epicedion Aug 5 2013, 07:13 AM
Fundamental security methodology will not change. It has not changed in thousands of years. The premise of 5th on wireless is flawed at its core. Think about it... The claim is we want to make things more hackable. So we are going to force a flawed security model on the player base to make gear more hackable... And then you are going to try and claim the security is fine. It obviously is not fine because the goal is to make things more hackable. Your logic is circular and flawed at its very core and prove my thinking is actually the method that would be used. Not 5ths. Because a corporation sure as hell is not going to rewrite the matrix to make it less secure for their security teams...Which is just what you are trying to sell.
It's less secure in one way, but more secure in another. The number of daisy-chained commlinks sporting a dozen agents has gone down to zero, meaning the ratio of potential threats to credible threats approaches 1. That is, anyone that's detected as a potential threat (performs illegal matrix action) is very likely a credible threat and should be dealt with appropriately. This allows limited security resources and responses to be very focused. GOD is slow but inevitable -- 10 or so decent matrix defense rolls will likely bring the hammer down, which generally means deckers won't be hanging out in your host all day running the show like in olden times.
Regarding gear, corporations have hosts they can have their personnel slave their gear to, centralizing all their matrix security and providing overwatch from comfy chairs. Actually this puts the security personnel at a distinct advantage compared to a team of runners who has to carry matrix security around with them.
Posted by: Ixal Aug 5 2013, 07:15 AM
Maybe I have to reread the hacking chapter but I don't see how this is true in SR5.
While you may have several devices slaved to the same comlink or deck, getting one of them hacked doesn't mean that the others become more vulnerable. They still defend with the comlinks firewall like before. The only downside is that the hacker also gets marks on your comlink.
Posted by: Voran Aug 5 2013, 10:12 AM
I do understand the desire to discard the daisy chaining stuff, though yeah, the problem I potentially see is more through the introduction of hosts. Any location worth hitting has a host that can provide benefits equal or better to a fairlight. Which then suddenly makes it less possible for the decker on the ground to brick things anyway if they're slaved to the host. Just as runners slave their gear to their decker, so can security grunts to their host/spider/decker. And even if the decker is slightly less skilled, they're running equal or more dice than the PC.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 6 2013, 05:08 AM
While you may have several devices slaved to the same comlink or deck, getting one of them hacked doesn't mean that the others become more vulnerable. They still defend with the comlinks firewall like before. The only downside is that the hacker also gets marks on your comlink.
More vectors for someone to exploit. Just like a house with more doors and windows means more possible ways for a person to get into your house.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 6 2013, 05:11 AM
Regarding gear, corporations have hosts they can have their personnel slave their gear to, centralizing all their matrix security and providing overwatch from comfy chairs. Actually this puts the security personnel at a distinct advantage compared to a team of runners who has to carry matrix security around with them.
Slaving your gear to something is not going to make that gear more secure. Sorry. If their is a vulnerability in your hardware a hacker can exploit. Slaving it will not change that.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 6 2013, 05:15 AM
And there is no new functionality in the cyberware that would require matrix access. No amount of stamping your feet is going to change that. All of the functionality existed with out matrix access 3 years earlier.
And you still have not answered my question. Probably because you know I am right.
Posted by: Epicedion Aug 6 2013, 05:44 AM
Exploit, yes. Exploit easily, no.
A local corporate host can easily have Firewall 10, which is yards better than other devices. Slave yourself to the Firewall 10 host, and voila, your gear is more secure.
And you still have not answered my question. Probably because you know I am right.
20 years ago wired reflexes let you act 3 times in combat before anyone else could act. Explain that change.
Posted by: RHat Aug 6 2013, 06:38 AM
And you still have not answered my question. Probably because you know I am right.
Mechanical changes don't always (and in this case don't) represent in universe changes - and in a few cases, there's some minor retcons. The standard/throwback functionality is, in-setting, all the functionality they had, and the wireless stuff is new. Taking away functionality on a meta level only to add it back with the wireless bonuses is a poor implementation, but don't try to pretend it exists as an in-world shift.
And I didn't SEE any question. Looked back at that post, and still don't.
Posted by: Voran Aug 6 2013, 10:39 AM
I suppose I get it. In some cases I can see why a wireless bonus might be applicable, but as appropriate, there are also some devices/cyber/etc that don't really have any reason to be wireless other than a desire to link everything to a common monitor or somesuch.
If my cybereyes are requiring a fricking adobe or java update every fricking day, that's a bad thing
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 6 2013, 04:39 PM
SR4 has never been the descendant of SR3 it used completely new Rules and with these new Rules came other results
BUT SR5 is continuing SR4A (SR4A Ends in December 2074 SR5 starts January 2075) it uses the same Basic Frame orf Rules
So it makes no sense that Cyberware is suddenly 3 times, 5 Times or even 10 Times more expensive,
or that Suddenly there is no more Skin Link
(one of my converted Chars bought some packages of Skinlink in August 2074 I wonder why and how they suddenly disappeared)
Raised Skills (up to 12),different Modifiers, even different Initiative is ok (ImO) but some of the Rules Mechanics make ab.so.lutely. NO Sense (to Me)
HokaHey
Medicineman
Posted by: Epicedion Aug 6 2013, 04:44 PM
You can't say this for one edition transition and not say it for another when you're talking about expectations shifting from edition to edition.
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 6 2013, 05:59 PM
It wasn't me but CGL who said that
But I do agree with them though
HougH!
Medicineman
Posted by: IKerensky Aug 6 2013, 09:17 PM
or that Suddenly there is no more Skin Link
(one of my converted Chars bought some packages of Skinlink in August 2074 I wonder why and how they suddenly disappeared)
HokaHey
Medicineman
Because he never buy them in the first place ? Because august 2074 in SR5 is different than august 2074 in SR4A.
Cyberware is not 3 to 10 Times more expensive... That the price it always was in this new world.
Stop trying to mix timeline continuity and game continuity, they choosed to change the setting and thoses alterations apply retroactively. If you play a scenario from 2060 with SR5 rules then you use SR5 rules.
About the Tacnet, I think the players already benefit from the advantage of a Tacnet at the gaming table, they can talk, coordonnate, are fully aware of the status and health of their teammate and gears, they can pin point target and coordonate fire with an incredible precision, never surprised, no friendly fire, no wasting ammo on an already geeked target... No need to provide them with more benefits.
But, but, but my Decker want to rule the combat as well as the Samouraď or the Mage. Sorry kid, but this is an élite team operation, everyone have his job to do, but Decker one is not to coordinate combat operation while sitting in the middle of the firefight. The Samouraď wont cry because he have nothing to do during the legwork, the face wont cry when he cant do anything to hack security cameras, the mage wont cry when he cant go fish the paydata from the claws of the IC. So stiffen your upper lips and concentrate on doing your job. Tacnet is a reality... But it is specialiste job, military specs, and runners are just singles individual assembled in Rif Raf teams by fixer. They dont work nor fight as well as truly professionnal soldiers.
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 7 2013, 04:55 AM
Which is completely wrong
I played exactly this Char in August 2074 when he bought them.Now I'm playing exactly the same Char a few Month later
For me its something like this
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
only in the possibly worst way
It was never like this with the Change from SR3-->4 because the Ruleframe was completely different and it was a Leap in Time also 2063-->2070 so there was a Leap in continuity and I could easily accept the chnages
Now , the Rules-Frame is nearly the same and there is a continuity in Time
So ther is NO Change at all !!
Well, I see it in a different light for me its a continuity of the two "Shadowrun-Worlds"
In a way its like in the Movies. I never liked Alien Part III because the Alien Queen in Aliens(Part II) was without Eggs and I always wondered where those two eggs came from (and howthe Facehuggers could sense Ripley,Higgs and Newt in their Stasis Cocoon, how they came to cross half the Suleiko, how they could bypass half a dozen Airlocks and why the face Huggers were activated at all.)
Yes, now when I think about it SR5 has at least as many inconsistencies as Alien III
And I would like to "activate" my Suspension of disbelief, but SR5 is not cool enough for me
No, thats quite wrongCGL definitely said that they continue the Timeline and History. And they did NOT change the Setting !
its not a Star Wars setting or a Deadworld setting, SR5 is still the same Shadowrun setting as in SR4A , what are You talking about ???
With the same Dance as last Year
Medicineman
Posted by: IKerensky Aug 7 2013, 07:31 AM
It is still the same Global setting. But there is fine adjustement in balance, economics and game ambiance.
For once, as you noticed, some things that exist in the SR4A never existed in SR5. Thus when you port you character you have to take into account the fact the world is different in this area. The things doesnt´t disappear on New Year Čve, they just never existed in the first place.
Same goes for the Cyberware price... It doesn t change, the balance of the world change and cyberwares are more expensive in the SR5 settings that there was in the SR4 setting. The date you set a scenario in doesn't set the game system and setting you use, the ruleset you use do. You can keep using SR4A rules to play up to 2080, you can use SR5 to play before 2070, but in both case you have to adapt to each game peculiar balance, especially economical.
So what a character buy or did in SR4A need to be Retconned or modified to be compliant with the new settings. Your items dont disappear, your character version in the SR5 world never buy them in the first place... Probably using the money to pay for the costier Cyberware.
Posted by: KCKitsune Aug 7 2013, 01:52 PM
I played exactly this Char in August 2074 when he bought them.Now I'm playing exactly the same Char a few Month later
For me its something like this
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
only in the possibly worst way
...snip for brevity...
With the same Dance as last Year
Medicineman
Just do what I'm going to do... NOT play SR5!
I may take a look at some of the rules and "back port" them into SR4, but as a whole, the rule set, IMO, sucks. For those of you who like what CG did... good luck
Posted by: Stahlseele Aug 7 2013, 04:00 PM
He doesn't have much choice.
As far as i know he is more or less official Supporter for Pegasus.
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 7 2013, 06:40 PM
As far as i know he is more or less official Supporter for Pegasus.
not more or less, I AM a Supporter of Pegasus Games
And I always have choices
In my private rounds I'm sure that we're gonna be playing SR5 with (lots of) Houserules some Day
(I 'm not gonna convert and create 10 Chars for SR5 when I'm not sure that I'll be playin' it some Day)
HougH!
Medicineman
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 9 2013, 02:34 AM
And I didn't SEE any question. Looked back at that post, and still don't.
Do you plug your computer straight into the internet? Or do you use a router like a smart person? Why would you plug your cyberware straight into the internet with no protection? Does that seem wise?
Posted by: Jaid Aug 9 2013, 03:02 AM
apparently people in the shadowrun setting do that sort of thing all the time. not that it would make a difference, because every single device is specifically designed to pass along everything sent to it anyways.
of course, devices *are* designed to deal with undesirable commands. that's why everything has a firewall rating too.
Posted by: RHat Aug 9 2013, 05:01 AM
In this metaphor, the commlink you slave it to is the router.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 9 2013, 11:22 PM
and the fact that deckers can hack your cyberware proves my point of view is the correct one.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 9 2013, 11:24 PM
And the fact that your Point of View proves correct thoroughly shows how insanely stupid the idea of Wireless Bonuses for Cyberware is. *shrug*
Posted by: RHat Aug 10 2013, 05:08 AM
Oh, so putting something behind a router is now some sort of perfect protection?
Your point of view is based upon a fundamentally invalid notion of security methodology.
Posted by: Jaid Aug 10 2013, 06:13 AM
Your point of view is based upon a fundamentally invalid notion of security methodology.
hacking my computer won't let you make me blind, or deaf, or turn off my central nervous system (and the aspect of which i am most fond regarding my central nervous system is the part where it works, and, you know... transmits useful messages like telling my lungs to breathe and my heart to beat and my arms and legs to do something about dangerous situations, that sort of thing...)
so yeah, i'll readily admit that i'm prepared to accept less than perfect protection for my computer. the loss of my computer would be quite inconvenient, moderately difficult to replace, but ultimately, isn't likely to render me unable to function.
i am, however, somewhat more dependant on my central nervous system, eyes, and ears, and am inclined to feel slightly more concerned about the possibility of something happening to them.
Posted by: RHat Aug 10 2013, 06:17 AM
And guess what? Literally nothing in the game makes your CNS hackable, so that's not a concern. Wired Reflexes do not replace your CNS, and having them hacked doesn't do anything to your CNS. As for the eyes and ears, if you could obtain a serious improvement to the visual and aural acuity of the technological replacements you were using in exchange for a 1 in a million chance of it getting hacked once, I'm pretty sure you'd do it - and even if you wouldn't, 99.9% of people would.
Posted by: SpellBinder Aug 10 2013, 06:18 AM
This came to mind reading your post, Jaid: Ever get the burning sensation just behind your eyes?
From page 228 on Bricking: "Devices that are bricked never fail non-spectacularly. Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."
So just what happens to the meat when one's cybereyes, control rig, or commlink that's in your brain gets bricked? Or your whole nervous system throughout your body when your wired reflexes is bricked? Or your spine when your reaction enhancers is bricked?
Posted by: RHat Aug 10 2013, 06:23 AM
From page 228 on Bricking: "Devices that are bricked never fail non-spectacularly. Smoke, sparks, pops, bangs, sizzles, nasty smells, and occasionally even small fires are common features of a device in the process of becoming a brick."
So just what happens to the meat when one's cybereyes, control rig, or commlink that's in your brain gets bricked? Or your whole nervous system throughout your body when your wired reflexes is bricked? Or your spine when your reaction enhancers is bricked?
Nothing in the rules. Perhaps an oversight, or perhaps there's a mismatch between the intent of the fluff and the intent of the rules.
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 10 2013, 07:05 AM
and what happens if You Brick a WiFi-ed throwing knife ?
with a smouldering Dance
Medicineman
Posted by: Jaid Aug 10 2013, 07:25 AM
funny
"By replacing specific, isolated
vertebrae of your spinal column with segments of
superconducting material, your reactions to events become
quicker. Add the Rating of reaction enhancers to
your Reaction attribute (and remember to adjust Initiative
and Physical limit accordingly). Reaction enhancers are
incompatible with all other enhancements to Reaction,
including wired reflexes."
that kinda sounds like it's replacing parts of my spinal column.
"Skillwires are a system of neuromuscular
controllers that overlie the body’s natural nervous system"
as was pointed out above, it seems like the logical result of sparks, smoke, and searing hot metal and melting plastic being applied to my body's natural nervous system just *might* have some drawbacks.
"This highly invasive, painful,
life-changing operation adds a multitude of neural boosters
and adrenaline stimulators in strategic locations
throughout your body"
oh great, so it was painful for them to put it in, and i bet when they put it in it wasn't on fire, either. i'm sure this won't paralyze me for life when it goes up in smoke, though. who knows, maybe having melted plastic and metal dripped onto your nerve endings is good for your health, right?
but yeah, in any event, reaction enhancers specifically do replace parts of your spinal column. brick them, and there goes most of your ability to move. granted, it's not your entire central nervous system, but it's certainly enough of it that i for one would think twice about putting it online if i was the kind of person who actually stood to gain any benefit from having it online (ie, if i was the kind of person that actually had both wired reflexes and reaction enhancers, that being the only reason either of those two implants would ever be online).
and incidentally, the only function of cybereyes that is superior to having the right set of glasses is a smartlink. yet another device that puts me rather outside of the group that can expect to have a 99.9% chance of never being hacked.
and the cyberear abilities that aren't available in headphones? none of them need wireless either.
so no, i don't imagine i would be putting my eyes and ears online.
Posted by: RHat Aug 10 2013, 07:36 AM
Yeah, the logical result in some cases of the presented fluff might be paralysis, but that is not and should not become the rules as they are written. Reaction Enhancers may not provide any benefit over and above the norm, for example, if they've been bricked, but much like a katana is still sharp the enhancers are still generally conductive.
Let's not pretend the actual written consequences are worse than they are. As for cybereyes/cyberears, I very rarely see ANY reason to take them in the first place because in almost all cases glasses and contacts are just as good. Might be fair to suggest that they need to have some sort of general boost in the first place. And as far as things to slave to the decker's deck go (to get the best protection you can), wireless 'ware is a prime candidate.
Posted by: Epicedion Aug 10 2013, 07:54 AM
Let's not pretend the actual written consequences are worse than they are. As for cybereyes/cyberears, I very rarely see ANY reason to take them in the first place because in almost all cases glasses and contacts are just as good. Might be fair to suggest that they need to have some sort of general boost in the first place. And as far as things to slave to the decker's deck go (to get the best protection you can), wireless 'ware is a prime candidate.
Cybereyes and ears win on capacity. Glasses and earbuds just can't fit every upgrade.
Posted by: RHat Aug 10 2013, 07:58 AM
Ah, but you can combine multiple options (goggles and contacts, earbuds and a microphone...).
Posted by: Epicedion Aug 10 2013, 08:42 AM
Contacts are always wireless -- they don't have a universal data port to support a wire, and there's no skinlink. The only way to control their visual modes is to have them wireless-enabled. If you want to get really technical, they have to be wireless-enabled all the time as they have no actual controls that would allow you to turn the wireless on and off.
The microphone + earbuds idea is a neat trick to get around capacity, but also note that only cyberears get Dampers, Balance Augmenters, or Select Sound Filters rated higher than 3.
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 10 2013, 08:57 AM
You could use Contact lenses for Low Light and Flash Compensation as they won't need WiFI for these Enhancements .
HougH!
Medicineman
Posted by: Voran Aug 10 2013, 09:08 AM
Depends on your group tho. Some might like the Ghost in the Shell aspect of hacking a cyber person and making Batou punch himself in the face with his own cyberarm. On the other hand, turning PCs into NPCs due to 'haha possession!' or stuff is really dependent on knowing your group and what their tolerances are. If they start feeling you as the GM are trying to WIN, and can obviously do so by crafting a world full of cheap-shots, they may not respond well. They might, but as I said, know your group.
It seems a little unfair to single out the cyber-guy for raaaaaape, or make them feel like they're forced to limit their playstyle cause 1)no one in the group decided to be a decker, so 2)no one can protect them from a near-level or equal or better NPC decker intent on messing with them.
Posted by: KCKitsune Aug 10 2013, 06:32 PM
Other than Vision Enhancement, every other vision mod does NOT have a wireless bonus! So you don't need to frag around with having things on the Matrix.
EDIT: ninja'd by a few people
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 06:57 PM
EDIT: ninja'd by a few people
Problem is that is you want to use your smartlink online, and you have an image link in your eyes, your eyes are just as susceptible to being attacked as the smartlink is. This is Stupid on so many levels it is insane. As many people have also said.
Posted by: Slide Aug 10 2013, 07:21 PM
Bust out the data jack
Posted by: Slide Aug 10 2013, 07:31 PM
I just thought of something else, how is hacking your cyber eyes with high powered cyber deck fundimentaly any worse than me using a $20 laser to hack your real eyes?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 07:45 PM
Which still does not protect you if your smartlink is still wireless, and it is communicating to your Datajack (via a wire or wireless). So now, not only is your smartlink still at risk, your Datajack and Eyes are now vulnerable, instead of just your Eyes. See the issue yet?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 07:45 PM
Considering I can avoid the laser, it is very different.
Posted by: Slide Aug 10 2013, 08:13 PM
SPEED OF LIGHT!!! Good luck, chummer. Invest in IC and Agents.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 08:14 PM
Your Aim is not speed of light, nor millimeter perfect. So, who cares how fast the laser is, it is irrelevant. Bullets are effectively faster than you can dodge, and yet, how many rounds are expended in a combat? What is the ratio of hits to expended ammunition? *shrug*
Posted by: Slide Aug 10 2013, 08:17 PM
No its not, if you are ducking and dodging to avoid a laser in your eyes I still win. and if you say its not powerfull enough I'll invest a 25k, a fraction of a good cyber deck, and still blind you. Invest in some cyber security. at least enough to give you the time to turn off wireless capablities of all of your equipment. What sort of action was that again?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 08:21 PM
You are obviously under the mistaken assumption that I endorse Wireless Bonuses. I can see no reason to EVER have wireless capabilities turned on, for any character in SR5 (Save a Decker, using his Deck, or a Rigger using his console). Talk about sheer stupidity (wireless being turned on, natch). Now, had they actually put together something that would truly incentivize having wireless on, then maybe I would consider it, but as it stands now, it is jut dumb. *shrug*
Posted by: Rystefn Aug 10 2013, 08:24 PM
You can avoid hacking, too. What's the difference?
Posted by: Slide Aug 10 2013, 08:31 PM
now the wireless bonuses making sense, and the wireless bonuses being useful are two diffrent things. +1 to dice pool on perception checks per level from vision enhancment? yes. Stacking wired reflexes and reflex enhancers? yes. +2 too me shooting? yes. using my com to comunicate wordlessly with allies? yes. Might be marginal advantages, but marginal advantages are life and death in a fight. And if you have enough security to find out that some one is hacking you have enough to turn off wireless.
As I said, I don't agree that all of these bonuses should be wireless but thats a diffrent can of worms.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 08:33 PM
Difference is the stated design goals of the developers. They wanted to make Hacking universal (How the hell they came up with that idea, while eliminating almost all hacking is well beyond me, based upon their logic/Implementation for the matrix) so that Hackers (Deckers/Technomancers) had "something to do" in combat (which is just silly, since Hackers ALREADY had plenty to do in combat - Said from years of actually playing a fairly powerful hacker over the course of several years). And then they give us a half-assed, ham-handed system to implement that design goal (with Wireless Bonuses even the Author said were picked randomly, with no thought to how or why, because they were cool, rather than making sense). And if the solution is to just not go wireless, then they have failed at their stated design goal.
See, that is a HUGE difference.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 08:38 PM
As I said, I don't agree that all of these bonuses should be wireless but thats a diffrent can of worms.
And my issue is that NONE of these make any sense. They are a random selection of things the author thought would be cool, (his own words) with absolutely no thought to what was actually being implemented. And the fact that the implementation does not make any sense when considering the ramifications (and actual rules/text in the book) of Bricking (Sparks, Melting metal and plastic, etc.) internal ware, well it is just that much more ludicrous. They say one thing, then when confronted with the actual rules they wrote, backpedal and say "well, that is what happens, but for internal ware, that does not actually mean anything." I call BS. *shrug*
Posted by: Slide Aug 10 2013, 08:49 PM
so what you are saying is that you think the bonuses are worth taking but don't like it because it makes no logical sense to you?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 08:50 PM
No... I am saying the bonuses ARE NOT WORTH TAKING, and they MAKE NO SENSE (which even the author admitted... He was going for Rule of Cool, rather than making Sense).
Posted by: Stahlseele Aug 10 2013, 08:52 PM
and let's not forget that the author thought it was enough to slave the things to the comlink and you'd only need a PAN-Connection, not a Matrix-Conncection for them to work . .
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 08:53 PM
That too... Left Hand not talking to the Right Hand. Epic fail all the way around. *sigh*
Posted by: Abschalten Aug 10 2013, 08:59 PM
Shit, I think they're only marginally useful bonuses and they don't make any logical sense. It's no sweat for me to ignore them.
Posted by: Rystefn Aug 10 2013, 09:05 PM
See, that is a HUGE difference.
No, that is a HUGE non-sequitur. I have the ability, right now, to burn out someone's meat eyes with nothing more than what I have sitting on my desk IRL. So how is it such a heinous crime for a game system to allow for the possibility of a hacker to burn out your robot eyes?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 10 2013, 09:14 PM
Your ability to TRY and burn someone's eyes out with your desk implement is irrelevant. I could stab a letter opener through someone's eye. That does not impact the argument at all.
A HACKER should NEVER HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE CYBER EYES. They should never be online in the first place. And even assuming that they are (which is a massive assumption, because no one would put their ability to see at such risk - because it IS a significant risk), they should far take more than an action or two to completely destroy, which is what Bricking actually does per the book's Definition and effects (look em up and see... Dev's/Writer's protests notwithstanding). Yes, if you have been captured, and someone hardlines your cyber through your Datajack, well, you have more problems than being bricked. But that is a risk. Just walking along and having someone screw you over because they can, on a whim (and in SR5, it is exactly that, a whim), well, that is just asinine. The counter argument that a low-lifestyle wage slave is going to invest in 5,000-8,000 Nuyen worth of electronics to keep it from happening is just ludicrous. Hell, the fact that cyberware costs increased so much makes the assumption just ludicrous. Goes to show that the developers really did not understand Economics (or chose to ignore it so they could get the Retro SR2-3 feel back into the game).
Posted by: Stahlseele Aug 10 2013, 09:19 PM
now imagine i could do that, to you, from my bed, without you knowing how, why, from where, when and being unable to defend yourself against it.
i don't have to restrain you. i don't even have to be on the same continent as you. not even on the same planet technically speaking . .
because you have to wear glasses that will allow me to focus them in such a way that the light hitting them will be enough to burn out your eyes.
and you can not take these glasses off at all either. or make them inaccessible to me. all that and so much more. and all that and so much more why?
because the makers of your glasses decided that it needs to be this way so they can send advertising your way and to inform you that you need new ones because your eyes are degrading further, neccessating stronger lenses.
Posted by: Abschalten Aug 10 2013, 09:49 PM
I think you nailed it. +1 Internets.
Posted by: KCKitsune Aug 10 2013, 09:49 PM
because the makers of your glasses decided that it needs to be this way so they can send advertising your way and to inform you that you need new ones because your eyes are degrading further, neccessating stronger lenses.
And said advertising has mascots that want you to rip out your eyes and pour on the brain bleach by the tanker truck full.
Posted by: leetnoob Aug 11 2013, 12:15 AM
As a rather newbie GM, I am curious, what does a decker do in combat if there is no cyberware hacking? Is it more of hacking the environment (Like that security camera on the side of the street)? If you could give an example that would really help.
Posted by: Stahlseele Aug 11 2013, 12:24 AM
Hacking Drones.
Hacking Tac-Nets.
Providing ECM and ECCM for the Team, such as Tac-Nets.
Posted by: Slide Aug 11 2013, 12:30 AM
Traditionally they would duck and cover, or fire back. You can do things like hack vehicles, doors, fire systems, or whatever the objective happens to be can give them something extra to do.
Posted by: SpellBinder Aug 11 2013, 12:36 AM
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 11 2013, 02:19 AM
Don't forget signals intelligence, which was a huge thing that my character concentrated on as a Cyberlogician. Controlling the flow of communications and intercepting the opposition's communications is a HUGE thing. The character was pretty decent at it. And as others have stated, Tacnets, along with remote sensors, doors, vehicles, drones, etc. My character never lacked for anything to do. And he was also a pretty good shot, for when he needed to actually, you know, shoot something. Hacking cyberware is just stupid.
Posted by: RHat Aug 11 2013, 02:48 AM
Nothing against most opponents, but against more technologically sophisticated opponents they have options (though many of those only come up with the addition of advanced rules). Which is, incidentally, a serious problem from a design perspective.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 12 2013, 07:57 AM
Your point of view is based upon a fundamentally invalid notion of security methodology.
Putting something behind a router means you have to hack the router. Not the stuff behind it because it is not available to hack till you do so. And generally you put strong firewall software on your router. Rather than having put a strong firewall on every piece of cyberware and hardware. Which would be stupid and wasteful and inefficient. By saving money not putting firewall software on every piece of gear you get to put a stronger firewall on the one piece of gear that is vulnerable. Also by putting stuff behind a router means one does not know what is inside the network till they do hack the router.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 12 2013, 07:59 AM
Why is it the assumption that the decker can't participate in combat? is there some rule about deckers not being able to pick up a gun? You know in seal teams the Medic shoots...so does the com guy and the leader, and the translator. I would think the same would apply to Deckers...
Posted by: RHat Aug 12 2013, 08:21 AM
The mage casts, the Rigger rigs, the gunbunny shoots, the melee specialist slashes, the face uses Leadership... There is no possible design reason for the decker to be the only one who doesn't get to use his specialty in combat.
Posted by: Rubic Aug 12 2013, 12:46 PM
Straw Man argument.
Nobody's saying the Decker shouldn't or doesn't have things to do in combat.
What's being said: the options openly provided for deckers are limited and stupid, and too easily countered by simple actions on the part of players. Punishing players for countering a large vector of attacks (hacking) through simple, easily available means (turning off/removing wireless), while also providing themselves the benefit of being far less traceable (a professional necessity), is not only poor design, but illogical and possibly immature. It's "I don't like how you're playing, so I'm making a new rule to punish you."
We've been trying to point out ways this very concept could work better and more logically. We've pointed out situations where the concept just falls flat, contradicting the basic fundamental concepts of the game itself. Some 'ware (the reserve airtank implant) cannot take advantage of its own wireless bonus (specifically the monitor) in some of its core-use situations. And the only reason I can see them saying THAT requires a wireless connection to activate as a free action is because OTHER, more potent ware, couldn't then be justified to require a wireless connection for IT'S free-action activation.
Firmware? Not a problem, BAM, jailbroken is the new standard, since it works better (reflecting modern-day). Even corp elite would be doing that, because it works better and makes business more productive. Corps make it illegal? How many would refuse to overlook such a rule when it benefits them, and selectively choose WHEN to prosecute to cull certain "overpayed" employees when they desire?
Posted by: DWC Aug 12 2013, 12:48 PM
And the decker always has. He took control of and manipulated the environment, locking and unlocking doors, retasking cameras and drone turrets, turning on fire suppression systems, and controlling elevators and escalators. He ensured that his team maintained situational awareness and deprived the opposition of that same awareness.
Posted by: Jaid Aug 12 2013, 12:58 PM
mages casting got heavily nerfed, faces using leadership is not even remotely close to being as useful as just picking up a gun and firing, gunbunny and melee specialist are both roles that are only useful in combat and have to invest points elsewhere if they want to be useful outside of it, and the rigger's area of specialty is arguably combat as well, and certainly isn't useful in many other situations.
in order for the argument that other archetypes get to use their specialty in combat to be valid, i'm going to need to see people using swords to decrypt secure data files and gunbunnys being able to negotiate with the fixer using only their pistol skill without the system breaking, too.
otherwise, well... those who build for a combat specialty should bloody well be able to use it in combat, and those who don't build along similar lines as those specializing for combat tend not to be able to apply their other specialties to combat very effectively. sure, a face *can* use leadership. if they don't mind being less useful than hiring a ganger with a machine pistol to spray suppressing fire randomly, that is.
frankly, the decker's ability to influence a battle has always been much better than a face's (unless of course the face pulls out a gun and starts shooting).
the only one who gets a free pass for combat even when using a very utility-based area of specialty is the magician, and even that has been toned down (though certainly not eliminated) in SR5. every other non-combat specialty isn't exactly awesome at using their specialty in combat. just like the combat specialties are generally not very useful outside of combat.
Posted by: KCKitsune Aug 12 2013, 02:29 PM
Also, this is Shadowrun, there is no fixed "class" for you character. You're a mage, but you want to be able to help with getting stuff for the party, invest the points in Charisma based skills (Shaman do it better than Hermetics), You want to do hacking as well as sling spells, get some hacking skills (Hermetics do this better than Shaman). Sure your mage skills suffer, but you can do more than just sling spells.
If you're a street sam, you SHOULD have some skills in either hacking or Face skills. Just being a combat monster is so one dimensional!
Posted by: Voran Aug 12 2013, 06:23 PM
That being said, the way advancement mechanics are setup, unless you made a choice during chargen to set yourself up well for 'multi-classing', its generally not feasible to pick up after the fact.
Posted by: IKerensky Aug 12 2013, 06:59 PM
If you're a street sam, you SHOULD have some skills in either hacking or Face skills. Just being a combat monster is so one dimensional!
There is no class, but there is Rôle and in your small specialised team you have to fullfill your rôle the best you can. You sure can learn some tricks as a replacement in case of trouble but no one would recruit a mage to do the hacking, except If he is as good as a full Decker...
Posted by: RHat Aug 13 2013, 03:17 AM
That is not at all true. The following is, or at least reads to me as, an argument suggesting that deckers shouldn't be permitted to deck in combat.
******
So... There are no fights outside of a corp facility? For something to qualify, it needs to be general case - something that can always work barring exceptional circumstances.
in order for the argument that other archetypes get to use their specialty in combat to be valid, i'm going to need to see people using swords to decrypt secure data files and gunbunnys being able to negotiate with the fixer using only their pistol skill without the system breaking, too.
otherwise, well... those who build for a combat specialty should bloody well be able to use it in combat, and those who don't build along similar lines as those specializing for combat tend not to be able to apply their other specialties to combat very effectively. sure, a face *can* use leadership. if they don't mind being less useful than hiring a ganger with a machine pistol to spray suppressing fire randomly, that is.
frankly, the decker's ability to influence a battle has always been much better than a face's (unless of course the face pulls out a gun and starts shooting).
the only one who gets a free pass for combat even when using a very utility-based area of specialty is the magician, and even that has been toned down (though certainly not eliminated) in SR5. every other non-combat specialty isn't exactly awesome at using their specialty in combat. just like the combat specialties are generally not very useful outside of combat.
You get to make this argument the day that having someone roll Negotiate against you or not being able to decrypt a file can kill you. Until then, it's completely meaningless - combat is a special case compared to other areas of the game. But, for reference, a gunbunny and melee specialist have things from their specialty that directly lend themselves to other rules - high Agility, high Reaction and Intuition, and in the case of the Melee specialist a high Strength and really high Physical limit - and riggers can do a LOT outside of combat.
Aside from that: Saying that a specialty's usefulness isn't as strong as a combat specialty's is so far from the point you might as well be in orbit. Also, you really underestimate the usefulness of Leadership.
If you're a street sam, you SHOULD have some skills in either hacking or Face skills. Just being a combat monster is so one dimensional!
Which does not remove the fact that there is no reason for the decker to be the only one who doesn't get to use his specialty in combat. Seriously, I can't believe we're back to this argument...
Posted by: Rubic Aug 13 2013, 04:58 AM
Which we've already pointed out is a fallacious argument; deckers have plenty they can do in combat. The problems will lie in what the GM allows them to do. In this regard, it's inverse to the Background Count rules. Does the GM allow them to hack the lights? Turrets/drones? Enemy tacnet/communications? The enemy Street Sam's "Mr. Studd" implant that he forgot to slave to his system and left wireless after his night on the town (the enemy face/sam seems distracted, losing his initiative pass and kicking the barrier down in front of him as his pants leg jerks upward)?
The bigger problem in previous editions relating to hacking were the difference in initiative passes between meat and matrix, as well as the need for a jack point to actually hack in. Modern wifi cyberdecks seem to have fixed that, to some degree, though there's no way to FORCE somebody to turn on the wireless for their devices. Any logical system that is required to be hack resistant can simply do so via "disable wireless." This defense will not work for a tacnet (when we get them again), nor for communications.
Posted by: RHat Aug 13 2013, 05:09 AM
There has not been a general case example provided.
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 13 2013, 05:12 AM
but its not only the Decker
its the Face too and the Stunt Driver, The Outdoor/Survivalist Guy, its the Safeknacker, the Catburglar,
All of these Rôles aren't predestined for fights and contribute even less than a Decker .
Its not really smart to presume that every Rôle has the same usefulness in a Fight
and its even....un-smarter to force a Rôle on a Char thats not suitable for it
HokaHey
Medicineman
Posted by: RHat Aug 13 2013, 05:19 AM
its the Face too and the Stunt Driver, The Outdoor/Survivalist Guy, its the Safeknacker, the Catburglar,
All of these Rôles aren't predestined for fights and contribute even less than a Decker .
Its not really smart to presume that every Rôle has the same usefulness in a Fight
and its even....un-smarter to force a Rôle on a Char thats not suitable for it
HokaHey
Medicineman
Nope. Face gets combat use of his specialization through Leadership. For Stunt Driver, see Rigger - that being, after all, a concept under the umbrella of the Rigger. Survivalist, Safecracker, and Catburglar are all similarly concepts rather than specializations - the Catburglar, for example, would be a sort of infiltrator/BnE specialist who could contribute to a fight by angling for sneak attacks to get around someone's defense.
And who said anything about the SAME usefulness?
Posted by: SpellBinder Aug 13 2013, 06:06 AM
Had a face player do better in combat than he expected to in several runs. He always seemed to do more damage with his light pistol and regular ammo (and sometimes SnS) than he expected, and with (going from memory) a DP of 8 to shoot.
As for the decker now in a fight, favored Matrix action will probably be Data Spike. That is, assuming the decker can get enough spikes off before combat ends. Don't know about you guys but the fights never seemed to last long in my games. Even one group I know that's doing SR5, the decker has done more shooting than decking in a fight; something that's 100% possible in any previous edition of Shadowrun.
Posted by: Epicedion Aug 13 2013, 07:13 AM
The best option will still most likely be shooting rather than data spiking. Situationally, shutting down someone's commlink to isolate them or issuing false orders to draw off potential opposition before a fight might be a strong competitor. Thwacking one person's smartlink in the middle of a firefight probably isn't an efficient use of time.
Having to knock out someone's Wired Reflexes/Reaction Enhancers or Cybereyes will probably mean things have gone pretty sideways and your primary combatants are either incapacitated or unable to cope, and your only option is to level the playing field for your secondary combatants.
The best situations I can think of where combat data spiking will really be helpful are like these:
Pinned down by suppressing fire or a smartgun platform, need to shut off the gun.
Sniper in an inaccessible superior location.
Nearby drone rigger handling multiple drones, need to crash his RCC.
And so on.
Posted by: SpellBinder Aug 13 2013, 07:33 AM
Posted by: RHat Aug 13 2013, 08:30 AM
Attack 7, Logic 6( 8 ), Cracking 6 and Hammer offers a pool of 14 and damage of 9 + net hits. PR3 Lieutenant gets 9 dice to defend. Assume DR2 for the target item, so 9 damage boxes and 6 dice for soak. All told, there's a 52.65% chance of instantly bricking the item, which can be a pretty useful thing - not as useful as killing the guy, but you probably don't get a 50/50 shot of that. Taking away the enemy lieutenant's primary form of attack, for example, can be very useful.
Posted by: BigGreenSquid Aug 13 2013, 12:03 PM
Looking at this from an IC hackers perspective, yes GOD may want you to have all of your devices appearing in the matrix as icons, even the ones you don't want anyone to know about. However, I'm a hacker. I don't really care what the rules are, if they don't work for me, I'll tweak them until they do.
It is not enough to merely slave my stuff to my cyberdeck. I want more than just a firewall to defend my PAN. Behind my firewall I will set up an IDS and transparent proxy on my cyberdeck, and close all other ports. All traffic through my cyberdeck will be through the proxy. I will then NAT my CommCode/MatrixID/IP address to all of my devices using a point-to-point subnet. In each one of my devices I will drop the signal strength down to a 1m range. At this point all of my devices would be able to be "online," however from the Matrix only my cyberdeck could be seen and anyone would have to come within 1m to detect the broadcast from any devices.
Just because the Matrix wants you to be stupid does not mean you have to play along, especially as a hacker.
Posted by: BigGreenSquid Aug 13 2013, 12:32 PM
I could see a TacNet as a very upgraded version of the modern BFT.
http://www.viasat.com/government-communications/blue-force-tracking
The TacNet would comprise several interlocking functions. First, using satellite mapping, GPS positioning, and weather/atmospheric information combined with sensor feeds from individual sensor platforms (squad members, drones, vehicles) the TacNet would proceed to build a 3D battlefield map with all known forces.
Second, using the live map the TacNet would calculate fields of fire, plot azimuth/angle trajectories for indirect fire, and offer tactical suggestions.
Using a image link, the TacNet could paint targets (blue=friendly / red=hostile) and provide a color coded transparency/outline in a users vision of targets which may not be visible due to LOS. For example you could see an outline of a soldier hiding behind a tree as long as one sensor platform had eyes on the target. Using targeting information and AR displays, a shooter with a smartgun could fire accurately while remaining almost entirely in a covered position.
Finally, the TacNet encrypts the entire network into a single hidden node. As the TacNet would most likely be run off of the deckers cyberdeck, it would stay hidden as an opposed Computer + Intuition
[Data Processing] v. Logic + Sleaze Test using the cyberdecks sleaze.
Posted by: Medicineman Aug 13 2013, 12:36 PM
Nope
Everything is visible (even Stealth connections) thems the new Rules
You could do this in SR4A (Signals Str0 = 3 Meters) but you can't do that in SR5 anymore.
Minimum is 100 Meters
for not "playing along" You need Houserules (sadly)
HougH!
Medicineman
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 13 2013, 03:33 PM
Completely and utterly immune to it if that lieutenant turns off the wireless (or never had it active to start with). So, now, what is the Hacker gonna do? Oh wait, there is still communications, remote rigged devices and tacnets. EXACTLY what was available in SR4A. NO NEED to make the cyber guy susceptible to the stupidity of wireless bonuses and bricking whatsoever. *shrug*
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 13 2013, 03:36 PM
HougH!
Medicineman
Naah... just remove wireless form everything that has no need of being on the Matrix in the first place. That is called using throwbacks, and is described in the books. Good luck hacking any of my stuff in SR5. I will make an enemy hacker absolutely useless when it comes to bricking my stuff.
Posted by: BigGreenSquid Aug 13 2013, 05:08 PM
At this point, it will be at least a year before I switch my game over, I'll see if JH backs down from to this retardedness in the matrix splatbook. If not... Well, it will be my turn to become a grognard. Everyone at my table works in IT/telecom and I will not impose this level of stupidity on them.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 13 2013, 05:58 PM
Indeed...
Posted by: Sendaz Aug 13 2013, 06:01 PM
In a surprise move to encourage wireless use on their weapons line, Ares has announced the innovative 'Use It or Lose It' wireless system being installed in all new firearms for the 2077 lineup.
This simple system revolves around a small, but powerful explosive situated in the middle of the weapon with a detonator that requires constant wireless updates to prevent it from exploding, failure to receive the necessary signals triggers the explosive thus rendering the weapon useless and possibly injuring the obviously criminal element trying to use it in an illegal (offline) mode. Any attempts to disable the explosive itself would likewise trigger detonation.
When asked about what would happen if signal jammers were used to cut off the device from normal Matrix access and potentially trigger an explosion, Junior VP Thomas Hammerill admitted there were "still a few design bugs being worked out" but assured the conference attendees that this would not stop the new rollout in the fall of 2076 and that patches would be provided down the road when a final solution was attained.
Posted by: DWC Aug 13 2013, 06:05 PM
This simple system revolves around a small, but powerful explosive situated in the middle of the weapon with a detonator that requires constant wireless updates to prevent it from exploding, failure to receive the necessary signals triggers the explosive thus rendering the weapon useless and possibly injuring the obviously criminal element trying to use it in an illegal (offline) mode. Any attempts to disable the explosive itself would likewise trigger detonation.
When asked about what would happen if signal jammers were used to cut off the device from normal Matrix access and potentially trigger an explosion, Junior VP Thomas Hammerill admitted there were "still a few design bugs being worked out" but assured the conference attendees that this would not stop the new rollout in the fall of 2076 and that patches would be provided down the road when a final solution was attained.
That explains the Excalibur.
Posted by: SpellBinder Aug 13 2013, 06:10 PM
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 13 2013, 06:34 PM
Nothing explains the Excalibur...
Posted by: BigGreenSquid Aug 13 2013, 07:15 PM
This simple system revolves around a small, but powerful explosive situated in the middle of the weapon with a detonator that requires constant wireless updates to prevent it from exploding, failure to receive the necessary signals triggers the explosive thus rendering the weapon useless and possibly injuring the obviously criminal element trying to use it in an illegal (offline) mode. Any attempts to disable the explosive itself would likewise trigger detonation.
When asked about what would happen if signal jammers were used to cut off the device from normal Matrix access and potentially trigger an explosion, Junior VP Thomas Hammerill admitted there were "still a few design bugs being worked out" but assured the conference attendees that this would not stop the new rollout in the fall of 2076 and that patches would be provided down the road when a final solution was attained.
+1 internet, absolutely brilliant.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 13 2013, 07:38 PM
http://www.viasat.com/government-communications/blue-force-tracking
The TacNet would comprise several interlocking functions. First, using satellite mapping, GPS positioning, and weather/atmospheric information combined with sensor feeds from individual sensor platforms (squad members, drones, vehicles) the TacNet would proceed to build a 3D battlefield map with all known forces.
Second, using the live map the TacNet would calculate fields of fire, plot azimuth/angle trajectories for indirect fire, and offer tactical suggestions.
Using a image link, the TacNet could paint targets (blue=friendly / red=hostile) and provide a color coded transparency/outline in a users vision of targets which may not be visible due to LOS. For example you could see an outline of a soldier hiding behind a tree as long as one sensor platform had eyes on the target. Using targeting information and AR displays, a shooter with a smartgun could fire accurately while remaining almost entirely in a covered position.
Finally, the TacNet encrypts the entire network into a single hidden node. As the TacNet would most likely be run off of the deckers cyberdeck, it would stay hidden as an opposed Computer + Intuition
[Data Processing] v. Logic + Sleaze Test using the cyberdecks sleaze.
This is exactly what I want to set up rules for. I would also include noncombatants as say yellow. So you can designate innocent bystanders..
Posted by: Sendaz Aug 13 2013, 07:39 PM
Bystanders only count as visual cover.
Posted by: Shadow Knight Aug 13 2013, 07:41 PM
This simple system revolves around a small, but powerful explosive situated in the middle of the weapon with a detonator that requires constant wireless updates to prevent it from exploding, failure to receive the necessary signals triggers the explosive thus rendering the weapon useless and possibly injuring the obviously criminal element trying to use it in an illegal (offline) mode. Any attempts to disable the explosive itself would likewise trigger detonation.
When asked about what would happen if signal jammers were used to cut off the device from normal Matrix access and potentially trigger an explosion, Junior VP Thomas Hammerill admitted there were "still a few design bugs being worked out" but assured the conference attendees that this would not stop the new rollout in the fall of 2076 and that patches would be provided down the road when a final solution was attained.
Which like the guns with various rings etc. to make it so only owners can use them will not sell. as failure to work in life or death situations tends to lead customers to not risk using them at all.
Posted by: Sendaz Aug 13 2013, 07:52 PM
O_O;
Sorry, thought the humor was self-evident on that one.
Posted by: BigGreenSquid Aug 13 2013, 07:56 PM
As to the original topic...
A TacNet might be its own device. If a Commlink is like a smart phone, a Cyberdeck a tablet and a RCC a briefcase, then a TacNet should definitely be the size of a laptop. Moreover, to keep it within 5e retardedness, it functions as a hidden micro-host. It could have three matrix attributes (Data Processing, Sleaze and Firewall) fixed at its device rating and as a host everything "in" it is hidden by the TacNet's sleaze. The stock metaphor for a TacNet would be a Combat Information Center (CiC).
I do like the shared dice pool idea for its simplicity. Another option would allow the TacNet to assist/speed things up. For example:
Street Sam Joe is completely crouching behind cover, but looking in the direction of enemy fire, via his AR display he sees a transparent outline of the terrain in front of him, as well as two enemies completely hidden to his LOS behind a building. The TacNet calculates that if Joe were to move over 2 feet and raise himself up to a 3/4 crouch he would have a clear shot at the third enemy. As a free action Joe confirms the suggestion and paints his target. Looking up he sees a floating box in his AR display and a green dot ahead of him. Raising himself up to the "window", Joe puts his rifle through the window and quickly aligns the red dot of his smart link with the green dot of the TacNet target, pulls the trigger, and drops back down into cover. Joe has executed an extremely well aimed shot, very quickly and bypassed the entire aiming process.
Things a hacker might do to a TacNet:
* Create confusion effects by giving misleading advice such as showing good cover when the spot is actually lined up with an enemy shooter, changing target designations (squad members get painted red) causing friendly fire, causing a smartgun to give incorrect aiming indications, momentarily taking down the squads suppressors/dampeners right before a flash-bang goes off, etc.
* Concealing enemies by removing target designations, actively editing the video feed to a street sams cyber eyes so they do not see the dandelion eater sneaking up on them, cloud the enemy's TacNet with a barrage of AR spam.
* Disable communications
* Feed all of the enemy's TacNet info into your own
Posted by: IKerensky Aug 13 2013, 08:54 PM
Ok but If you add a Tacnet you had to change the combat for Groups without Tacnet or Tacnet down:
-Players aren't allowed to communicate except by using a free action once during each action pass.
-Players cant communicate any information about their gear, state, position or everything else except by using this fre action.
-each player is only aware of what his character know and thus the GM should split the group and separate them physically to avoid inadvertandly provide infirmation.
-players cant target opponent nor designate opponent for their teammate to shoot except by using the speech free action. Any attempt to denominate a target by his physical location to a teammate not standing right by yourself required a Logic+Intuition test ("my left or your left ?")
You see, no need to add rules for a Tacnet, players are already been using a Tacnet around the table.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 13 2013, 08:56 PM
-Players aren't allowed to communicate except by using a free action once during each action pass.
-Players cant communicate any information about their gear, state, position or everything else except by using this fre action.
-each player is only aware of what his character know and thus the GM should split the group and separate them physically to avoid inadvertandly provide infirmation.
-players cant target opponent nor designate opponent for their teammate to shoot except by using the speech free action. Any attempt to denominate a target by his physical location to a teammate not standing right by yourself required a Logic+Intuition test ("my left or your left ?")
You see, no need to add rules for a Tacnet, players are already been using a Tacnet around the table.
Indeed, which is a very relevant observation...
Posted by: RHat Aug 13 2013, 09:30 PM
That requires those three things to be present - and I wouldn't expect to see them until about some PR5 teams, or possibly 4 in some exceptional cases. Meaning that those things are not general case examples. And really, until about that same point I find it unlikely that someone is running with wireless off.
All that said, we're kind of going in the wrong order here - before considering what a tacnet IS, we need to figure out what it's going to DO. Suggestions, anyone?
Posted by: apple Aug 13 2013, 09:37 PM
+1 to +4 dices and +0 to +2 on limits on attack/defense/infiltration/perception tests depending on how many different sensors are in the ntwork.
-1 to -4 and -0 to -2 on limits on attack/defense/infiltration/perception tests depending on how deep the enemy decker is in the network.
Ah, scrap that. That´s not for SR5. You have matrix bonuses for that.
SYL
Posted by: BigGreenSquid Aug 13 2013, 09:41 PM
-Players aren't allowed to communicate except by using a free action once during each action pass.
-Players cant communicate any information about their gear, state, position or everything else except by using this fre action.
-each player is only aware of what his character know and thus the GM should split the group and separate them physically to avoid inadvertandly provide infirmation.
-players cant target opponent nor designate opponent for their teammate to shoot except by using the speech free action. Any attempt to denominate a target by his physical location to a teammate not standing right by yourself required a Logic+Intuition test ("my left or your left ?")
You see, no need to add rules for a Tacnet, players are already been using a Tacnet around the table.
You are correct, players can indeed do all of the things you just said, just like someone with access to google can indeed duplicate most, if not all of the functions of a military grade BFT, yet there is a significant difference between what one can cobble together and a system specifically designed for a TacNet function.
First off, all the information being passed by players as you described in transmitted in plain text. It wouldn't take a hacker with a couple hundred thousand nuyen worth of gear to "listen in," but any script kiddie with the equivalent of a police/cell phone scanner picked up at your local stuffer shack would work. Like the modern BFT, a TacNet by its very nature would be on an encrypted/hidden network. Is hackable/detectable? Yes, but that would take a hacker with a couple hundred thousand nuyen worth of gear.
Second, you could definitely use your image link to share what you are seeing with other squad members and in an AR window they could see exactly what you are seeing. Using a downloaded satellite image a group could put into a shared AR window, that shows the location of the entire group, and by putting pins on the map you could designate target locations... All of which is in plain text and requires the user to actively do all of those things.
A TacNet does all of that, in a seamless automatic fashion. By taking the sensor information from every sensor platform on the net, it could build a real-time 3d battlefield map. One that would contain information holes where no/little sensory information is being reported certainly. Using that info, the TacNet could automatically plot targeting/field of fire info. When your buddy is running short on ammo, he does not need to shout out to the net. The TacNet already has all of the squad's logistical information and sends advisory messages to the most tactically viable member who has spare ammo.
Sure, you could, and I am sure most green shadowrunners do, jimmy-rig up many of the functions of a TacNet. Professionals on the other hand will take all of that battlefield information and put it into a package that is much greater than the sum of its parts.
Posted by: BigGreenSquid Aug 13 2013, 10:08 PM
Trying to stay within SR5 as much as possible, I see a TacNet doing several things. First, it functions as a micro-host, hiding and protecting all it its members at its device rating while still providing slaved devices online matrix access.. Second it allows secure communications. Third, it could provide a shared initiative pool based upon its rating. Members of the net could draw from the pool to automatically aim for example. The TacNet could provide team limit and BD pools based upon its rating as well. As a complex action, the TacNet operator could make a leadership or some other test TBD to refresh the pool (it doesn't automatically refresh). These pools, could be attacked and depleted (2 marks) or stolen (3 marks) by opposing hackers. Also, a compromised TacNet would give an opposing hacker complete access to the squad's logistics and allow him to directly attack/manipulate slaved devices.
Finally, a TacNet would require a minimum number of inputs per device rating to operate (additional inputs would exceed the TacNet's ability to adequately process, thus providing no additional bonus. A TacNet who's inputs begin to drop off degrade to the next lower rating that it has the necessary inputs to function at.
I realize this needs some fleshing out, but I think it could be a good starting framework.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 13 2013, 11:14 PM
Why would you say that? It is common sense, and basic security, that you run with Wireless off. See, you cannot be detected that way if you do. Seems like that will be the rule, rather than the exception, unless you are running something like a Tacnet or Communications (which is obvious, of course, but which do not need to be activated until actually needed). Any Shadowrunner running active is just asking to be shot, found, bricked, etc. Seems pretty counterproductive to me.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)