When has any DRM survived contact with the hacking community? The whole point of Deckers is that they crack corporate security. Explain why they can't do the same on a baton?

Yeah, there's a bit of a oddity if hackers can design illegal decks and and control software to do awful things to this New Matrix, yet somehow can't bypass the online functions of a stun baton.



-k

Because in addition to raw power, there's many other issues such as how many threads you can throw around (note that by throwing a bunch of threads around you make it a lot less possible to determine what it is you're running, because people aren't seeing anything close to the complete function) Now, sure, you could carry a bunch of commlinks and have your own little mesh in the area, which if you managed to carry enough (I think you're still underestimating the number) could do it, but all that would change is that you'd have functionality in dead zones.

The whole "can't hack me because signal range is only 3m" thing only works if there's nothing wireless inside that radius, which will almost never happen.



It's not the total processing power, it's the AVAILABLE processing power; seeing as the very best deck is not better for Data Processing than the very best commlink, it should be quite obvious that your deck's processing power is already allocated. So you'd have to free up a bunch of processing power before you'd have cycles available for this sort of processing.

Or do you have some sort of explanation that makes it irrelevant that the power isn't actually available?

Well yeah, the fact that this implies (more like outright requires) that literally every wireless device is set to run unsigned code from anyone, anywhere, of any kind. Even if you accept that, you still are going to have a really hard time explaining how that would help with extending a baton faster and other amusing shenanigans that have been shown so far.

In the end, any explanation is going to sound even dumber than the bare bones "because Reasons" in the core rulebook. Either dump it, modify it, or run it as-is with a wink and a nudge like people have done for technomancers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

I'll say again - I've never claimed this explanation works for the action economy bonuses.

RHat, Wired: Other than trolling the rest of us (because that is what I believe you are doing) why do you support the steaming pile of fecal matter known as "Matrix Bonuses"?

I am really curious to why you would mash the "I BELIEVE!!!!!!" button so hard that even God is going "That's a pretty nice shot!"

Your central thesis seems to be that you can harvest excess processing capability from surrounding devices, yes? Even if we accept that explanation without qualifiers (zero overhead, zero latency, no security controls, dynamic binning of tasks) the problem is that it doesn't explain what is actually in the book.

I'm not sure a person could explain the bonuses as written and keep a straight face; you (imperial you, not calling out RHat) have to build an overly-complex straw argument to even start. I wouldn't even bother, honestly. It's clear what the design intent is, once the game hits the wilds people can make their own decisions about it. In my opinion the Shadowrun universe has bigger issues than magical wireless bonuses stacked on already magical wireless sitting next to magical wireless hackers with magical programs.

The Professor on Gilligan's Island could probably make a friggin nuke from two coconuts given the stuff he did every week, yet was stuck on the isle how long? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

WARNING! WARNING! TV Trope page referenced: Rule of Funny

So I suppose you believe it's impossible for someone to legitimately hold a point of view that differs from yours? And that it's impossible to have valid reasons for holding such a position?

Seriously, if you're going to act like that there's no way in hell I'm going to bother with engaging you in any sort of discussion.



(A) Doesn't explain everything, nor did I at any point claim that it did. But it does explain many of them - for example, the boosts to to Vision Enhancement fit into this very, very well.

(B) It's not a matter of "zero" overhead, or "zero" latency - it's just a matter of low enough overhead and latency to allow the more complex algorithms to operate on the higher processing capability in a fast enough time scale.

Hey RHat, before you go off in a "Righteous Rage", I asked why you support these bonuses? My question is legit: What about these "Bonuses" makes you go "Yeah, I can believe that!"?

I can honestly say that I don't understand. I can not comprehend it. It makes so little sense to me that I wanted to know WHY you think that they are a good idea.

As for the "steaming pile of fecal matter" that was out of line. I apologize.

I have no idea what this thread is even about anymore.

Oh, I'm not going into any sort of rage - but a certain baseline level of respect is needed to have a reasonable discussion, and you amply demonstrated the absence thereof.

There's a few reasons. First, and foremost, I appreciate the design intent behind it - it may be part of once and for all solving on of the issues that developers have been trying to fix in Shadowrun for some time (poor integration of the decker into the group). It finally provides a general-case use for hacking in combat, without which the hacker would literally be the only one who doesn't get to use his specialty in combat. It works to establish just how different from and how much more powerful than the modern internet the Matrix actually is. It reflects the general intent and level of control the corps have in the setting. It solves serious issues in SR4's Matrix where it was possible to get a perfect hacking defense for free - and that's the sort of thing that should always cost.

Could it have been better implemented? Certainly. But the core idea is good, and most of the bonuses do make a certain kind of sense.

Generally speaking, this is all stuff I agree with!

The implementation of combat hacking didn't go far enough, in my opinion. I'd have dispensed with wireless bonuses entirely myself and just made (virtually everything) explicitly hackable virtually all the time, with the action resolution of combat hacking even more streamlined, down to one attack roll and one defense roll, like a gunshot or spell.

Wireless Bonuses were not my idea, but I was the guy who was told to seed the gear chapter with them. So I did so. I feel pretty bad that they're so spectacularly hated/reviled.

Eh. The ability to decide between the benefits of wireless or the lack of vulnerability is a good thing for player agency.

Only 1D6? Piker.

Well, you add another D6 if you bring War! into play.

That would have gone even worse than the wireless Boni, I'm sure. You'd rob all mundane characters of any agency in everything. It would have been a spectacularly bad idea.


The problem is they seem random and do not take into account what would logically benefit from wifi and what wouldn't, as has been mentioned all over dumpshock by now. Take that as a learning experience, and don't take it personal, because it isn't.

Most of us aren't arguing against the CORE idea (hackers being able to hack gear). Our biggest issue is the implementation, which you just admitted "could have been done better." For certain instances, the argument is that specific bonuses don't make sense, and realistically (with all of Shadowrun's Tech so far, back even to the 2050's) would be more likely to offer such bonuses WITHOUT Matrix access.

To wit, it doesn't make sense that if you were in a desert, far from the Matrix or any Grid, with all of your gear, an extendable baton, and your commlink, that the Baton would not be able to extend from a mental signal transmitted through that commlink to take up only a free action. It doesn't make sense that having 20-50 Response 6 commlinks daisy-chained into your PAN, streamlined, and dedicated purely to processing data from your smartlink/laser sight won't provide as much computing power as a few household nodes throwing up their spare processing power and leaving a potential trail (or even that it WOULDN'T leave a trail).

The SOP for runners has already been established. Zero/minimal visibility is already a cornerstone of this. You won't eliminate every last scrap of evidence, but that doesn't mean a runner will wallow in their visibility in any regard.

DRM won't survive the first month, heck the first week, that Corps require it. Deckers will have it cracked; gear will be "jail-broken" and functioning offline about as good as online. Patching a few chips here and there will bring runners back to dark when they need to be. Even "software in the cloud" will be ripped, re-engineered, and posted for illegitimate use before the corps can finish posting the update notes; if not, an equivalent freewarez will be created in short order by dedicated hackers, anarchists, programmers, and open-source aficionados.

I disagree with this in the strongest and most fundamental terms. Hackable equipment is not incompatible with and does not infringe upon player agency. At all.

And what about the agency of hackers, including PC hackers, to be able to hack stuff? In combat, when everyone else is doing their specialty?



Fair enough, hermit.



Why, why, why, why, why, why, why? Is there howling when NPCs use guns versus players? Drones? Spirits? Magic? Why can everything go both ways except hacking?

If an NPC mage in SR4 throws a Force 6 manabolt at an unprotected Willpower three characters and rolls so many net successes so that character explodes like a magic-filled meat grenade, is there howling?

If an NPC sniper shoots an unsuspecting PC in the head with a Barret 121 and instantly kills them, is there howling?

Now what about if an elite hacker or technomancer NPC like Puck or Dodger wirelessly detonates the grenades a PC is carrying? (I pick the wireless functionality of grenades because it is one of the wireless boni that makes the most sense to me.) Howling then?

If yes to the first two, then maybe the question is one of how the GM uses the tools at his disposal, not anything to do with the medium in which death is delivered. If no to the first two but yes to the second, what about hacking innately makes it more upsetting to happen to you as a player than having a mage blow you up with a manabolt, tuck you in like a baby at night with a sleep spell, or control your mind? I'll never understand the selective aspect of this absurd philosophy of entitlement.

Because hacking, implemented this way, would equal a sniper taking potshots from the astral, with elemental effect APDS and a base pool of 18 (accuracy 10). Astral snipers can only be fought by other astral snipers, too, and everything you really can do is hope you can soak enough damage until your own astral sniper can snipe the enemy astral sniper away (who, though, suffers from extreme astral fading and has only a few turns to dispose of the enemy astral sniper).

Do you think that kind of sniper would cause an outrage?


Hacking does not go both ways. That's the problem. Hacking is a one-sided attack a non-hacker has little chance to defend against. We're talking abozut 20 pool versus 12 (max) pool. Do the math, it is nowhere near equivalent. And unlike a mage, hackers don't need physical LoS. They attack from the comfort of another realm. Where exactly does this go both ways.


You mean like the Face or the Vehicle Rigger?


No, keeping the wireless on on these is Darwin Award level stupidity.

I was not complaining, merely citing the differences in style gameplay given what rules we have.

And for the 3 questions, most players would howl a bit at the sudden death in each case. But that doesn't make it any less possible. The Barret solution is the optimal choice for dealing with a cybertroll steamrolling over the security forces in a pink Mohawk campaign because you don't want to be close to that thing.

Having the hacking sped up for trash mobs in the matrix while still having the more drawn out fights when facing the boss types could be very appealing, but I do not know if the new layout would support this. May need some house ruling.

Fair point. I do have a counter-argument, but as it's quite lengthy and involved and a bit subjective, I'll let you have this point for now; with the caveat that the vehicle rigger can easily bring his vehicle to bear in many combats, even if not in all combats.



I don't see any validity to that comparison, hermit. None, zero.

A hacker is not invulnerable or unexposed when attempting to hack you. A hacker attempting to hack you in SR5 is sticking his neck WAY out. If he fails rolls, he automatically takes Matrix damage, you can get marks on him, and so on. Plus if you keep your PAN disconnected from the Matrix (which there's no rule against doing) he can only hack you from mutual signal range, which doesn't require him to be within groping distance, but it does put him within shooting distance. So just, you know...shoot him.



Fascinating. SK, do you think that most fans would agree with your final statements?



This is not actually ANYTHING LIKE what dice pools look like in SR5. I would know better than you, I played a hacker during SR5 playtesting.

10-14 vs. ~12 is generally what attacker vs. defender hacking dice pools look like in SR5.

I am so adding that to the range lists (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

As people have been saying until they are blue in the face, it is the implementation of wireless bonuses that have people so upset. No one would be upset if tacnets became ubiquitous, and gave bonuses to perception, allowed indirect fire, and let you communicate with team members as a free action. No one would be upset if the hacker hacked into the tacnet, or hacked into the building's security, or hacked a rotodrone and had it crash onto the team's van. A hacker hacking into someone's cyberware, because of a forced choice between either being vulnerable to hacking, or having your wired reflexes and reaction enhancers being inexplicably unable to work together, is upsetting. Especially because it is all but impossible to defend against (magic is the same in a lot of ways. This is a major weakness of the system - not something to be replicated with hacking, so that now the sammie needs two people babysitting him).

In combat, everyone else is not doing their specialty. The medic does not get special attacks due to his knowledge of human anatomy. The mechanic does not get to do extra damage to drones because of his know-how. The face, even if he is a pornomancer, can't realistically tell the guards shooting guns at him "Hey, quit Ares, and come work for me." Hackers are utility characters, not combat characters. They can still hack tacnets, override building security, tap into satellite feeds, hack drones, and do a million other useful things in combat, though.