 Nash Equilibria and Matrices, Your targets are not stupid. |
  |
 Nov 9 2007, 09:23 AM
Post
#201
|
|
|
Awakened Asset  Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309  |
The difference between a hobby hacker and a purist is the difference between skill rating 2 and skill rating 5 on one side, and the number of optional programs on the other. We play with rather high income, and almost any hobby hacker has only those programs the real hacker was willing to hand out. THATS RAW RULES HERE!
In case of Franks Ruleset, skill does matter, as does selection of attribute. Logic does not seem to be high priority for non-mages in our group, and those 80+ points in skills a good hacker will need are nothing to laugh at. Two groups, plus some mechanic skills, some pilot skills, at least basic skills for communication... and if you buy yourself a few drones, the time spend upgrading equipment yourself AKA at half price makes you a full-time hacker on its own. You are what you play. The same someone who buys high hacking skills without being a hacker could have an agility at racial max, a strength of one, and carry a HMG. Its GM time. |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 11:34 AM
Post
#202
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,838 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,669 |
That's not the only time that SR4 (and other editions of the same) will show you that it's more efficient to do something in a particualr way. With hacking, it is often most efficient to not over-specialize and to have many other capabilities. You'll be 80% of the full-on hyper-specialized hacker, but you'll also have a half-dozen other uses. As a shadowrunner, this should be more appealing...
The fluff also says that adepts can be as strong and quick as cyber. Look at how inefficient Improved Physical Attribute is (especially for going aove the natural maximum) compared to the bio or cyber options. Does this mean that a 'pure' adept that takes this approach is wasting points? Yeah, it does. So what? Everyone gets what they pay their points for, and you can't cure stupid. If someone wants to go all uber-hacker and complains that they suck after reading over the rules and having some play experience (first time ignorance may be excused - once), that's their fault, not the game's. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 11:56 AM
Post
#203
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
This almost got lost in the sea of Doctor Funkenstein's spam attack on this thread. For that I apologize, since this was in many ways the last on-topic post, I should have gotten to it a long time ago. Which is to say yesterday. In Shadowrun 4th edition you can connect to the wireless matrix with "synthskin" (Augmentation) which you can put on your hands, or your feet. Anywhere you want really. And that stuff sets up a connection with your brain and you can imbed transmitters into it in order to increase the original signal range of the stuff (3 meters) to whatever you need to get your PAN and hacking groove on. In the case of Trolls, that Synthskin can indeed be about 3 meters away from the head, which indicates to me that the brain is treated as having a Signal of 0 (high density signal transmission range of 3 meters). But while that indicates that you could set up a Sim Module 3 meters in front rather than just 3 meters down in order to send and receive high density signal, who says you want to actually do that? What if instead you just want to technologically image the contents? In such a model you are using the disturbances in your field, not disturbances in the target, and thus the important question is one of your own signal range, and not one of the "Handshake" range (which is to say the range at which both units are within signal range of each other). A Drone does not need to be able to send information back to its controller to receive instructions. And there's no real reason to believe that a human brain needs to be able to send information back in order to be destructively interfered with. As is, an Action Potential is invoked with the shift of 15 milivolts at any point in the Axon. And if the right (wrong) seven neurons go off at the same time and epileptic event occurs. The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that we couldn't possibly trigger an event like that with the expenditure of less than about 100 atto-joules. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that we couldn't possibly hope to do it that cheaply - that no matter how well we calculated things there would be many points of energy loss. But you know what? I spend about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atto-joules every single day just staying alive. I am totally willing to spend many trillions of atto-joules triggering a seizure in my enemies. I'm willing to go even more inefficient than that. Heck, modern Action Potential Stimulation therapy uses as many as forty volts, and I'm willing to be even that inefficient if I'm bringing an opponent to his knees. The thing is that directional signal strength does not fall off with the square of the distance. It falls off only with shielding. The only thing which counts in a directional model is the shielding provided by the atmosphere. A non-trivial concern certainly, but not a technically infeasible one. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 9 2007, 02:00 PM
Post
#204
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
I'm not sure it's meant to communicate with the brain with EM waves. I guess it's closer to skinlink, or maybe it uses the neural network... I think it's a stretch to say it supports the view that the naked metahuman brain has a 3m range signal. EDIT : But I'm not sure why I answer because it looks like the only way to be "on topic" is to either support your view or have minor disagreement you can easily solve. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 9 2007, 02:58 PM
Post
#205
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548 |
Wouldn't that be the GM's fault for making hacking / decking that cheap and easy? I could have sworn that it was up to the GM to provide a proper level of challenge to his/her players... including having high security hosts that a moderately skilled hacker/decker can't penetrate because you needed a high skilled one instead. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 9 2007, 03:15 PM
Post
#206
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Actually, that doesn't really work at all. One of the things people take issue with about hackers is that since attributes don't come into things much if at all the only real dicepool advantages a "pure" hacker -might- have over a "dabbler" is in skill ratings, the codeslinger quality and perhaps the hideously expensive 'ware from Augmentation. That actually doesn't amount to that much bigger of a dicepool, and it's certainly not a big enough pool to average much more than a single extra hit compared to a "dabbler" on most Matrix actions. Since the single biggest danger to an intruding Hacker is the sheer number of rolls required rather than the difficulty of said rolls, it becomes rather hard rather quickly to create a Matrix system that will defeat a dabbler and challenge a specialist; a sufficiently tough system will usually take either character down with little problem simply by forcing rolls until their luck inevitably fails them.
Compare that to street samurai, who typically only need a roll or two to grease an opponent and have more options to take advantage of when it comes to distancing themselves from "dabblers". |
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 03:28 PM
Post
#207
|
|||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
NOT A MOD POST. That out of the way, @Frank: I'm neither trolling nor attempting to bait you. What I am doing is trying to get you to acknowledge that the problems that you have with the game are just that: Your problems with the game. Not "problems with the game", not "reasons the game sucks", but "Frank's problems with the game". This is not your private forum. This is not where people come to read your ideas and bask in them. This is a place that people come to discuss issues. If you don't want anyone to take issue with your posts, don't post them. And I'm not speaking as a mod. I'm speaking as someone that posts to online forums. It's. An. Open. Board. We. Are. Free. To. Discuss. Things. Here. I'm sorry if you see "responding to your posts with anything but fawning praise" as baiting or trolling, but that's your issue, not mine or anyone else's. I have posted several things that run directly counter to how you are interpreting the rules and fluff, and counter to what I see as your misconceptions (and those of others). Your posts run counter to my interpretation and ideas, does that mean you're trolling and baiting me by starting this thread? Disagreeing with you and having a different opinion != trolling. Back to the issue:
What are you talking about? There's not need to go on and on about a specific strategy for using such rules. And since you keep ignoring that fact, that is in the core rulebook. It's optional and it's in a sidebar, sure, but it's in the book. Right there. In print. It's no more an esoteric strategy that we need to expound upon at length than "shooting someone in the face for standing still, and not shooting them in the face if they hide behind cover." Gelare and mfb: Maybe I'd see what you're meaning a little more clearly if you gave a game example of when a sammy is just as effective as a hacker? Are you saying what I think you're saying, which is: Okay, a Sam has a decent commlink, and is running a few programs. He has dumped a few points into hacking. So he needs to hack into node X, and he needs 4 hits. Since he is rolling skill+program, he has just as much chance of success as a "dedicated" hacker. That's it, right? I can see how the situation could come up with the skill+program that the rules use, but apparently it just hasn't been a problem for me. (Again, I expect this is because my sam players never want to be hackers or they would play one; I just don't have the experience with the issue.) If that's the case, isn't there already a house rule that addresses the problem? The attribute+skill and can only do it with a program, and only get hits up to...is it skill or attribute? So why would such a major system overhaul be needed when a simply one line house rule exists? K, sorry, I'm responding as I read through, so
It looks like that's exactly your issue. I can see that, but again, easy house rule, no? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 03:32 PM
Post
#208
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
The basic topic here is how rational behaviour will make Joe Average abstain from participating in the wireless matrix. Brainhacking has its place here because it is Franks way of enforcing matrix use. Still, it´s only a tangent to "should one use the matrix".
Less tangentially, the threat of hacking depends on the requirements of hacking. Duh! We will not reach agreement on this threat level, as the number of people who are into hacking depends on the campaign. Much. My opinion: - matrix use is a requirement of modern society - Joe Average is not under risk of lethal attack because - actual hackers are rare since not being caught while learning the ropes is tricky with several matrix security divisions out to justify their budgets. - if they are common, Joe Average will still believe what he is told and run his comfy setup I for one have still to see a hacker not busy in combat. He might not be able to use technical tricks if found without drones in a otherwise dead matrix zone engaging low-tech enemies. Some enemies will fit this category nicely, some will turn their comlink of and need to be affected indirectly. Fine. The classical associal fat guy/kernel hacker has no business being in a brawl, too. Internal logic does not require the potential for brain hacking, too. A chip can offer a dual wireless interface. DNI-close contact tech can. If that DNI tech requires quantum tech to influence the brain (NOT just creating a simple and omnipresent EM field), required computing power can increase with range n-exponentially. So any advancement over the entire SR-history might have jielded a few centimeters of range. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 03:36 PM
Post
#209
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Well said. Analogy might be weak overall, but I see this as being much akin to eating fast food. We know it's unhealthy. We know we'll get fat. We know we shouldn't eat it. But we eat it because it's convenient, tasty, and they tell us to. In fact, I think I'll get Arby's for lunch today. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 9 2007, 03:38 PM
Post
#210
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,978 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New Jersey, USA Member No.: 500 |
I feel sad that I was ignored.:(
Really. Isn't everybody on this thread thinking of the Hacker's role in SR4 a bit too narrowly? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 03:43 PM
Post
#211
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
See the thing is though in the rules and fluff as present it's really not. Players like, say, Kyoto kid wander around with 'commlinks as mobile phones' all the time. You can seriously go buy a mobile phone now that has GPS, mapping, calls people, sports encryption (you can even get ones with semi serious encryption) blahblahblah and there are people living out in the barrens that really don't have this stuff because they are very poor.
Now maybe joe average wage slave uses wireless, but, like, whatever, because shadowrunners don't really have anything to do with joe average. They deal with barney the security guard, biff the go ganger and SuperBadAss the Ares SAS super commando. One of them cannot really afford fast food and the otherone certainly watches what he eats ;) |
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 03:59 PM
Post
#212
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 225 Joined: 13-July 07 Member No.: 12,235 |
What you're describing is the script kiddie phenomenon (if I read your post correctly), and that is one of my problems with the Matrix, but not my only problem. I am of the firm opinion that someone who wants to play a hacker should have a lot of options to play a hacker. Not to play a hacker and a sammie. Not to play a hacker and a mage. What do I mean by this? Let me clarify: A sammie can go on playing forever, accumulating money to make his less-than-half-human body even more tricked out with betaware and new SOTA gear and whatever. Furthermore, it is possible to mix and match the cyber and bioware in the BBB and Augmentation to make lots of exciting and different (that word is important) characters. I think that's awesome. Similarly, mages just have staggering options as characters that they can go on enhancing with karma forever. I don't think I need to spell that out for anyone. A hacker takes four ranks in each of two electronics-related skill groups, and spends maybe 20 BP on a truly SOTA, fully-loaded commlink. That is 100 BP. By spending this 100 BP, you have now reached pretty well near the absolute pinnacle of doing what you do. I don't mean that you're just an awesome hacker (though you are), but you are actually near the best hacker the rules allow. Sure, you can go get yourself cybered up, improve your marksmanship, but you can never get better at hacking. Seeing as the hacker is and ought to be a fundamental character type, I find that to be awful. For this reason, I like the set of house rules that Frank has put forth, which allow a hacker much more variety than two skill groups and a commlink. On a side note, I'm pretty sure myself and mfb have different (though not contradictory) beefs with the system, and some people decided to lump us together for reasons I won't speculate on. Sorry man, didn't mean to get you dragged into this. ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 04:26 PM
Post
#213
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Yup, script kiddie. Thanks for the clarification too.
Sorry for the lumping. :D I can definitely see your point, but I guess to me there's so much more to each character than the numbers and gear that it just doesn't bother me. I'm not saying that it's not to you, I'm just saying that's where I'm coming from (well part of it). And take the sammy, with his "options". Tell me that once the players (well, the ones that take "the best build) figure out the "best" stuff to get, they aren't playing the same stat sheet with a different name every time you slide up to the table. Same gear at the start, same gear 10 runs in. I just see it more as a problem of the people playing the game and not of the game, is all. And I don't mean that you're wrong for wanting to solve your problems for your games, or that that's a bad thing. Hell, "problem" is the wrong word. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 04:49 PM
Post
#214
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
There are two ways to handle this, really. If you want dedicated deckers to be powerful then you can either make it cost prohibitive for other character types to dabble, as is the case with magic and technomancy and as was formerly the case with rigging and decking, or you can make decking useful during combat. This does not necessarily mean that it should be useful in combat, but that it should be useful enough that there is a real dilemma about choosing to crack a node or choosing to shoot back at the person who is trying to kill you. This can be accomplished by actually using terrain and making security movements more time-sensitive. The decker opens and closes, he locks and unlocks, he controls the maze, people. And a decker who can do that during combat doesn't have to shoot a foe, he can simply lock a door so that the foe can never reach him. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 05:12 PM
Post
#215
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
First let me clarify something from my very long post. We're talking about two different waves here. Usually when people talk about "brain waves" they're talking about the alpha waves and the beta waves, etc. which sweep through the brain at large on the order of a few Hz. Those don't really carry much useful information in that state. You can tell if someone is calm, sleeping, alert, etc, but certainly not what they're thinking, any more than you can tell what one person in a baseball stadium is saying by watching the crowd do "the wave". But as you say, when nerves fire, ions do move, and a charged particle in motion generates electromagnetic radiation. (these being the waves I was talking about) And of course, when you have billions of these happening together, they tend to make patterns and listening to them all together give you the first type of brain waves. In order for a trode net to figure out what each individual neuron is doing, it has to be sensitive enough to pick up not only the waves from that neuron, but also be a sufficiently complex array that it can distinguish the waves generated by that neuron from the similar waves being generated by every other neuron at the same time. That's where the problem gets tricky.
No problem. I just want to say again that while I seem to be writing an awful lot on this one tiny point, overall I really like your rules, and I appreciate all the people who are civilly trying to exchange information and not trying to "win" anything. So don't take any of this as flaming. I'm just having fun exchanging information. Bear with me, I have suggestions at the end of all this.
I assumed that the synthskin on your hands acting as an antenna is connected to your brain via conventional wired DNI. Otherwise why bother connecting it to your body at all? If it's actually communicating wirelessly with your brain there's no reason for it to be synthskin, it should be synth-piece-of-stuff-in-my-pocket, or synth-thing-on-the-desk-over-there. Synthskin is required to be in your body. In short, I don't agree with you about exactly how synthskin works, although in the interest of full disclosure I'm not looking at my copy of Augmentation right now, so there's an upper bound on how insistent I can be at the moment. Although even if the book does explicitly and unambiguously say it works the way you say it does, I plan to house rule it to working the way I say it does. ;-)
You have a good point here. I agree that you can trigger events in a person's brain without listening to it, i.e. one-way communication. I agree that you can do so by selectively tweaking neurons, rather than the whole brain (which as I've insisted many times, is no longer brain hacking but more of a ray gun). However, let me point out that in terms of the complexity of managing the antenna array, an array capable of doing one can do the other. It's one of those fundamental electromagnetics thing. Now for clarity, let me point out that even with the given antenna array, outgoing communications would still be easier, but that's because of difficulties in constructing a receiver (which is not the antenna) with a good enough signal-to-noise ratio to actually be able to dig out the signal. But like you said, we don't really have to worry about the receiver, we're transmitting here, and that really is an easier problem, just not due to the antenna array. In short, you're absolutely right about this.
I agree. But the trick is to trigger the action potential in those seven neurons and no others. Or in whatever specific neurons you choose and no others. (or at least, very few others) Just hitting a brain with a strong enough blast of emag radiation will fire action potentials, no doubt. It absolutely will. It's really not difficult at all, if you're not concerned about the health of your target, which, fortunately, we're not in this example. But that's a trivial problem, and also falls in my definition of a ray-gun. It's not exciting the action potential that's the problem, not at all. That part is relatively easy. It's exciting the action potential exactly where you want it and no where else (much) in the brain that's the really, really, phenomenally difficult part.
I agree 100%. Getting enough power is not the problem at all. Accomplishing the desired goal without hitting the brain with too much power is more of a problem, because too much power just makes it a ray-gun, which I've said many times is a trivial invention.
You are correct about this. Mostly. If it's directional like a laser is directional, you're totally right. Arrays, even those with extreme directionality, still fall off due to more than shielding because they're made up of multiple antennas which are not as directional as the array, that's part of the point of making them into an array in the first place. Since we're obviously talking about something which is electronically steerable (since it can be aimed by changing the individual signal strength and phase of each element, rather than by being physically aimed with an exotic weapon skill) it's not a laser, so it is still going to fall off with more than just shielding, because it's the interfernce pattern which is directional, not the individual antennas. Otherwise it can't adapt to movement, reconfiguration, or different brains. It's a complicated problem, and it sounds like we both understand it well enough and we're just getting hung up on each other's approximations, so I'm not going to go crazy here. But yeah, extremely directional arrays don't fall off terribly quickly. This is true. But, the problem here is that whether it's an array or a laser of whatever, if it's highly directional like that you're going to be activating neurons in a beam; a line of them through their brain. Ray-gun. You eliminate this in one of two ways. 1) You play with the waveform such that it only peaks where you want it to and very few other places. This gets harder and harder with shorter wavelengths. Can we use longer wavelengths? Not really, if we're going to have single-neuron resolution we need waves about that small. Larger waves could interfere cleverly to make sub-wavelength peaks along the direction of travel, but you'd still be exciting other neurons next-to and above/below the beam (orthogonal to the direction of beam travel), so especially in the directional-beam case, we're absolutely commited to using a wavelength on the order of magnitude of neuron size, or smaller. And this wave which we're sending and affects only specific neurons along a path can't be sent by a single transmitter, because we can't do this trick with a single transmitter; that wave (even if it's the right shape) will still be propagating forward and do it's thing to everything in it's path. We need a standing wave, and that means interference, and that means we're right back to needing an array. Which sort of morphs me into point 2), you use an array. And this brings me back to an old, old point, that if you have a device (array) of size X which can accomplish this feat at distance Y, then at distance 2*Y the device needs to be size (at least) 2*X. I'm assuming that trode nets are approximately the size they need to be, or else they'd be smaller. If they could easily make them the size of a dime they would, and it would be the trode-patch. But they're bigger. At a distance of a few inches, they need to be the size they are, so at longer distances they need to be bigger. To sum up: here are some things that would make me fine with distant trodes: 1) Incorporate magic. As soon as there's a mind-probe focus involved in the process, all my arguments vanish in a puff of smoke. 2) Technomancers: see magic. 3) Large, specialized equipment. Much much larger than a trode net, and with limited range. 4) Small, extremely expensive equipment. I could see the special brain-hacking antenna existing if it cost many orders of magnitude more than a trode net. Make it cost a million :nuyen: and I can live with it. But then you should also be able to get a 'trode net which is very very tiny and sticks to your head in a teensy little place, for approximately the same price. Which I would also be okay with. And for the record, I still think allowing it is a huge concession, but it's at least a reasonable attempt to appease physics, and that's enough for me. ***this is the part where I really start making helpful suggestions instead of just bitching*** 5) Limit the effects. If you want a program which simply tunes one or more nearby antennas to excite action potentials in a chosen brain, causing some generic bad things to happen, I'm totally okay with that. I can even live with that amount of power coming from a commlink antenna, but I wouldn't call it brain hacking, and you couldn't do anything complex like inserting ideas or brainwashing. But making someone pass out, or have a seizure? I have no problem with that. I just have a problem with calling it brain hacking, 'cause it really is more of a ray-gun. Screwing with brains at a distance-okay. 'Trodes at a distance-bad. I have no problem with "black-hammer"ing a naked brain at a distance (although I would lobby for it being a different program entirely). It's the other (more precise) functions of trodes that I have a problem with working over such long distances. I think this is probably the best solution right here. This still forces you to need a commlink to defend yourself. Your friendly firewall could monitor your brain and the airwaves and notice these incoming bad waves and try to cancel them out or reconfigure your brain or blah blah technobabble I don't care. Having even a rating 1 firewall would be a better defense than having none at all, which as I understand it is your desired goal, but I feel that taking out the other abilities is more consistent with the gameworld as well as with physics. I would suggest that the range of the attack be based on the signal strength. I'd say use signal (strength - 4) (or some other number, whatever looks good) and consult the signal range table with the new modified rating (if still positive) and that's the range of the brain-fry. Your commlink might not have the range, but the hijacked transmitter nearby might. That just gives you your threshold to make action potentials happen, but I'd leave the actual damage based on program rating, since a better program can make more destructive waveforms or something like that. Other than that, I have no issues. :-) Geez, sorry about another super-long post. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 05:25 PM
Post
#216
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 87 Joined: 11-September 07 From: Saeder-Krupp Rhine-Ruhr Regional HQ Member No.: 13,215 |
I think I need a new smiley here: the "I agree with Moon-Hawk" smiley. :notworthy: :biggrin:
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 06:37 PM
Post
#217
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
DISCLAIMER: This is not directed at you personally Gelare, you're just the person on this page who is saying this stuff so that's why you got quoted. This is also representative of how I run my game and might not be the way other people run their games because my group has no problems with the RAW compared to what other people seem to have. 1) First off, a Script Kiddie |= 400 BP. A Shadowrunner does but not a Script Kiddie. 2) A Script Kiddie has <= 2 points in any skill because at 3 you are considered Professional. 3) A dedicated hacker is so much more than his Active Skills/Programs. It is also the way he interacts with the Matrix and his Knowledge Skills. eg. A Script Kiddie relies entirely on his Matrix Perception to ID an IC whereas a Dedicated Hacker uses MP + his complimentary knowledge skill Security IC. 4) Dedicated hackers have as many different ways to differentiate themselves from each other as do Street Sams. You took the example of maxing skill groups at 4. Well that's not the only option that you can take at character creation and still be dedicated. What you described is a GENERALIST. Look at the difference between someone who has EW 5, Computer 5 and Codeslinger (Intercept Wireless Traffic) versus another dedicated hacker that has Hacking 6 and Codeslinger (Matrix Infiltration). The first is very good at finding and intercepting signals and then learning everything there is to know about them. He's a good phone tapper. The second is the bomb at getting into systems undetected. Both of them will also be moderately good at everything else as Dedicated Hackers but they are specialized in 2 different areas. Another thing that differentiates a Good Hacker from just another cannon fodder hacker is Aptitudes. But, as I said at the top of the page that is just how I see the RAW, and I obviously fall into the category of those who feel it doesn't need change, just for people to change their interpretation of it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 9 2007, 07:26 PM
Post
#218
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
Perhaps setting up some more concrete definitions would be helpful in this discussion. Since there seems to be a lot of issue between dedicated hacker vs hobbyist hacker, perhaps we can define them by the amount of build points used to create a starting character.
We'll start with the assumption that you've spent 200bp on the 8 basic attributes, how tehy're spent is irrelevant, it'll be assumed that they're spent in the way which benefits the character most. That leaves 200bp for everything else. If you spend 50% of those 200bp for items or skills regarding a particular archetype, you can consider that your specialty. Spending 100+ points in guns cyberware and shooting/dodging skills will make you a streetsam more than anything else that you spend points on. Same goes for magic or hacking. Now if you spend 85% of your points for one archetype, you can consider yourself a "dedicated" specialist. This leaves 15% of your points for other basic survival skills and hobbies, but the vast majority of points have been put to one archetypal purpose. Now, under this set of definitions, I haven't made an assumption about riggers vs hackers, so if you feel that riggers are a different archetype rather than a subset of hacking. You'll need to define that for yourself in further arguments. In my mind though, I think that riggers have been set as a subset of hackers in 4th ed. I think that if you don't allow rigging as a subset of hacking that you may actually have difficulty macking a dedicated hacker, I'm not sure that there are enough items specifically for hacking to allow a person to spend 160bp on it. I'm sure I can be proven wrong as I don't have and haven't looked at augmentation yet. Anyway, with that done, hopefully people can continue to discuss from a common standpoint. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 08:26 PM
Post
#219
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 225 Joined: 13-July 07 Member No.: 12,235 |
For people who don't like long posts, I request you skip down to @Moon-Hawk. @eidolon: You're quite right, players do tend to gravitate to the "optimal" character choices. The problem as I see it is that no matter how you slice it, there are just a lot more options and progressions for mages and sammies - whether or not characters choose to follow them is another matter, of course. I'll admit, the fact that Unwired isn't out yet, while Street Magic and Augmentation are, almost proves my point by default and also makes it less interesting by default until Unwired does come out. Maybe Unwired will be all kinds of awesome and I won't have a problem anymore. But I think you see what I'm saying, that having a cap of 100 BP on absolute hacker-itude is lame.
Well heck, sounds like a pretty good reason to me. :D @Cheops: You're right that it is possible to make specialist hackers, who are really awesome at a given thing. And yes, I admit that 100 BP isn't quite the limit on hacking. The trouble I'm having is that Codeslinger, Aptitudes, specializations, whatever, they're ways you can improve in certain things, but there just isn't enough to improve on. Once you have Rating 6 programs, 6 ranks in those two skill groups, and the Codeslinger quality, that really is the absolute limit on hacking. And to make matters worse, that absolute best hacker the rules allow is only better from the generalist hacker available at chargen by 3-5 dice, depending on the task. And he's really not anymore interesting than that generalist, chargen hacker. Three more dice , or even five, does not give me a sufficient feeling of awesome that I feel the master of his craft should have. Don't get me wrong though, if RAW works for you, by all means, enjoy. :)
Yep, my point exactly. There's nothing wrong with playing a rigger of course, but I don't want to, and that being the case I'd like some more options on what else I can do with my mad computering skillz. Last but, to be honest, most important, and if anyone's rushing to debate me on the above points, I'd rather you read this first... @Moon-Hawk Again, good stuff. I mostly agree with your point #5, and I'm actually right now looking over Frank's rules to see how we could actually fix this. Please hold. Here are the "brain-hacking" programs in all their glory: Brain Scan: View someone's memories. Requires signal range, line of sight, and some time. Fix: The person has to be hooked up to something that can transmit data back to you. Change the range to handshake if you think you can justify the hacker controlling the target's commlink as part of this program, or to be on the safe side, make it connection. Done. Find Mind: Tells you if there are people around. Requires signal range. Therefore, it presumably tells you if there is anyone in range of the signal. Fix: This supposedly works by detecting perturbations in the wireless world around you. That's fine. No fix required. Black Hammer: I will Black Hammer your mom. For no reason. Requires signal range and line of sight. Fix: We do not need feedback from the brain in order to instruct it to digest the pancreas. No fix required. Jingle: Implant a suggestion in the target's mind. Requires a connection to the target. Fix: We have a connection, so we have back and forth communication of the type that is and ought to be required to use nuanced mental programs. No fix required. Seize: Causes the target to have a seizure. Requires signal range and line of sight. Fix: See Black Hammer, except this program is even more limited. Definitely no fix required. Peristalsis: Causes the target to poop his pants. Requires signal range. Fix: This seems a lot like Seize and Black Hammer. Therefore, change it to require line of sight as well as signal range. Done. Taxman: I honestly am unsure as to what this does and how it works on a human brain. Fix: Judgment postponed. For sake of completeness, here are the brain-hacking Technomancer complex forms. It's worth noting that whereas hackers are supposed to be all technology-oriented, Technomancers actually do use magic which precludes any discussion of technological feasibility. You can actually explain any weird stuff technomancers can do by going, "But look, it's magic!" And that's fine. Remember, in Shadowrun the Matrix is populated by sentient AIs, self-aware sprites, and a who-knows-what Deep Resonance that shouldn't exist if technology had a thing to do with reality. That said: Death Note: Man goto end. Sucks to be that guy. Requires signal range and line of sight. Fix: See Black Hammer. No fix required. Test Pattern: Creates an illusion in the mind of everyone around. Requires signal range and line of sight to all targets. Fix: For the hacker this would be iffy, but as mentioned above, the technomancer has no need to pay attention to the laws of reality. No fix required. Transfigure: I've underlined this because this really is the ultimate brain-hack. This is a technomancer-only complex form. It requires signal range and line of sight to the target. It takes one hour to use. If the target has any biofeedback filter or firewall active at all, this will fail. In that hour, you completely overwrite the target's brain. The whole thing. Memories, values, knowledge, whatever. Yowza. Fix: This is hardcore. Like, really freaking hardcore. This right here is why technomancers are feared. Since this is so hardcore, the fix is left up to the GM. Requiring connection range would be fine, requiring a range within Signal 0 would be fine, requiring an unconscious target would be fine, banning it outright would be fine. Pick your favorite or make your own. I feel like this thread at times has been the blind leading the blind, so I wanted to put in some relevant parts of the rules so we all know exactly what we're talking about. Moon-Hawk, does that stuff sit well with you? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 08:29 PM
Post
#220
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
no, it should not necessarily be more appealing, any more than it's necessarily more appealing to play a mage/street sam hybrid versus playing a dedicated street sam or mage. if someone wants to play a dedicated hacker (not overspecialized into utter uselessness, just focused much more heavily on hacking than anything else, since people can't seem to keep these arguments straight), that should be a viable option. every other archtype is a viable option; hackers should be too.
a) no it doesn't, depending on what you're trying to build, and b) the fact that tiny discrepancies exist in the system does not make huge discrepancies okay. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 08:34 PM
Post
#221
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Yeah. Yeah, actually, it does. I mean, I'm not going over it in super-detail and referencing back to all the other rules about connection range, etc, but in general this sits a lot better with me. I find these effects to be more reasonably pseudo-realistic, while still upholding one of Frank's core ideas; that Firewall 1 is, at least in many ways, safer than no Firewall at all. I like it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 9 2007, 08:44 PM
Post
#222
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 225 Joined: 13-July 07 Member No.: 12,235 |
I need a thumbs up smiley. :) What about other people? There are the brain-hacking rules in most of their glory, reasonably clearly defined. What do you think of them now? For your convenience, I'll explain the signal ranges. Signal: The target has to be within range of your signal. Their signal, or whether or not they have one, is irrelevant. Handshake: They must be in range of your signal and you must be in range of their signal. I'm pretty sure none of the brain-hacking programs or complex forms have this as their range. Connection: You have an open connection to them. Probably one they don't want there. That's why you're a hacker. Line of Sight: Duh. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 08:49 PM
Post
#223
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
which brings us back to the 'death rays from space' issue. sending commands to multiple drones is possible (or at least it should be, if it isn't in SR4), therefore sending heart attack signals to multiple brains is possible... and therefore wiping out all unprotected vertebrate life on earth is possible for one guy in a few hours.
where? a text search for synthskin in Augmentation gives only one result, where it's talking about cosmetic cyber; a search for synthetic skin gives four results--one in an in-character discussion about the dehumanizing effects of cyber, one in the disguise cyberware entry, and two in the penile implant entry. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 9 2007, 08:52 PM
Post
#224
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Like I said before, the only problem I had before was trode functionality at a distance. Setting your commlink's antenna to deep fry and zapping someone's neurons into submission is cool. Although I still say the range that you can do that should be much shorter than your normal communication range, simply because I think brain zapping is a high-power application than communication, but considering their data rates their communication power could be much higher than I'm assuming, so I won't argue it.
I mean, I still haven't decided if I want to actually adopt these rules, but I no longer object to any part of them, in principle. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Nov 9 2007, 08:54 PM
Post
#225
|
|||||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
This is one of the reasons I advocate shortening ranges for brain frying. If the brain-frying range is shorter than the normal signal range, you can't kill everyone from space with existing satellites. You would AT LEAST need a special MacGuffin sattellite, and it's easy enough to rule that the required signal strength is unattainably high. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 4th December 2024 - 04:36 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.