Why pick technos over uber hacker? Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'm mostly worried the -2 simply isn't enough, by itself.

It is typically a granularity issue... If you have characters who craft their own software and comlink/Nexus hardware, they are typically devoting some significant time and expense towards the endeavors. AS long as they invest in a Shop (My character's minimum standard for such endeavors) then the -2 is appropriate for the discrepency between the shop and the facility. However, if they are trying this without the benefits of the shop, they end up with a -6 to the attempts, as I cannot see a "Kit" existing for such endeavors, and the discrepency is so large that they SHOULD be hampered significantly.

In the game I play in, the character I play actually has both a Shop for Electronics (Hardware ) and for Programming. Though I tend to use the Facilities provided by renting a Programming Environment, as well as the programming Suite that is available, to avoid any unnecessary penalties to the endeavors. Considering that the character still spends Anywhere from a couple of Weeks to Several Months to complete a project, this is still a significant time devoted to Hardware and Software development.

It is also a Flavor thing. Anyone can ALways PURCHASSE the requisite equipment and programs, but it takes a special sort of character to design/build/program what is needed to perform your duties. I like the feeling of having something that the Character accomplished, rather than the stuff that is commercially available, even if the end result is still the same. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

PoliteMan, I simply don't see how or why you *could* program the Optimization first. To use your terms, it's neither separate nor part of the code itself; it's a modification added to the existing code. You can't modify something that doesn't exist yet. Abuse doesn't enter into it at this point. (Personally, I had never encountered the 'potentially run' issue before, and don't care about it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

Tymeaus, that's what I was concerned about: having the penalty scale appropriately for more-inadequate tools. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[PoliteMan]

Ok, lets take back up a bit.

We're talking about modifying a program. Now consider if we were building a gun and we wanted to give it the extra ammo modification. It should be even easier to make the modification if we were building the gun from scratch. Same with vehicle construction or anything else. Why in the world should it be more difficult to modify something while you're building it than after it is completed? I don't understand why we'd say that we cannot modify this program while we're coding it. If anything, it should be easier.

Now RAW isn't easy to work with here, mostly because the RAW for building anything is, well, less than well designed. But lets be clear, this sin't trying to find a loophole around RAW, this is trying to get RAW to work for something that should be possible and RAW just models it very poorly. The easiest way I can think to get around this is to start coding the option and the program at the same time.

And honestly, I like this. There are very few good reasons for a hacker to code up their own stuff as long as pirated software was around. Now there's something worthwhile for hackers to code and it's worth their time. And personally I love the idea of hackers desinging their own code, it's the defining trait of Fastjack and many of the named characters have had at least one program to their name. It's easy for the GM to manage progression, because they set the amount of downtime between missions.

[Yerameyahu]

I agree: there's not *great* reason that the RAW fails to have a 'one giant programming test' option. I'm just saying that we're 100% sure it *doesn't*; there's no question of post-modfication being 'more difficult', because there *is* no 'during' option at all. Given that, it seems like post-modification is the only valid choice. I certainly agree that a house rule here would be smoother.

Some people like to make the smallest possible tweaks (which is how I characterize my earlier suggestions), while others like big changes (creating some kind of unified 'big programming test'). The way the mechanic works, one big test is desirable for time consumed, Edge use, and other reasons, so it's important to keep that in mind. As we said earlier, there *is* abuse of the programming rules when specialized-optimized characters are involved, nevermind the fact that they're also getting R12 programs which (by some arguments) never degrade either. I guess that's one good thing WAR! did, mandatory R7+ degradation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Again, personally, this basically doesn't matter to me. I don't generally allow military-grade (7+) to just pop out of Joe Runner at all. It could be an issue for a R3 commlink making R6 software, but 'get a better comm' is such an easier fix. I just like working through the rules/balance/design side with you folks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think you raise an interesting point of comparison to weapon/vehicle mods. First, there *is* no weapon/vehicle design in SR4. There are only mods. Again, you can't compare 'build+mod' against 'one whole thing from scratch', because latter isn't an option at all. In SR4 vehicle/weapons, you can't even buy things with mods installed (only in the sense that mods have standalone Avail/Cost, I mean). All the mods are post-mods. You could possibly pre-buy the parts for some of the mods, but not without knowing exactly which weapon or vehicle they're meant for. In the spirit of being *similar* to these existing rules, you'd expect Program Options to act this way: post-mod only. They don't even have the options of buying ahead.

[Irion]

I guess it burns down to "it depends with which interpretations of the rules" you are playing.

If threading takes no action at all and your technomancer is able to thread up his attack form three times before hitting somone in the face with it, it is wise to choose a technomancer.

If your hacker is able to write his own (never degrading) rating 12 prog. in about two month, well I guess it is best to fly with the hacker.

[Cheops]

I'd say that playstyles would be a factor. Do you like planning, bookkeeping and preparing ahead of time? Play a hacker. Do you like flying by the seat of your pants like a Digital Cowboy? Play a Technomancer.

[Saint Sithney]

PoliteMan, I simply don't see how or why you *could* program the Optimization first.

Because the rules don't say that you can't.

Okay, now that we're ignoring what the rules say, because, as we've both already agreed, they're ridiculous, how about something less ridiculous... like building the program with Optimization at the same time since you can make sure that each step in the modular programing process is efficiently operating and as many redundancies and wasted cycles as possible are removed.

Does.. Does that sound reasonable?

[sabs]

Heretic!
Trying to make the Matrix Rules Reasonable!
Die!


uh.. mmm

I would think that Program Options should be built into the program when it's being built.
Or, coded INTO the program as part of a re-write.
So lets say I have Attack 4. I want to make it ergonomic.
I have 3 options
1) I buy Attack 4 w/ Ergonomic from a legit software company
2) I program my own version of attack 4 w/ Ergonomic, adding the ratings together, etc for my etst.
3) I buy attack 4, crack it, then code in ergonomic as a patch.

[Yerameyahu]

They don't say you *can* either, Saint Sithney. That's our whole problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I do agree with you and sabs, of course, when it comes to house ruling it: no premade/standalone Options, but it's fine to code a given program+options if the end result would work on your node. After all, this makes the coding take longer, which is as it should be. It *does* still benefit munchkin coders, but we can't build the game worrying about them all the time. In almost all cases, the 'mother program' has a longer Interval anyway, so you're usually (possibly) losing on the deal. Which is also probably as it should be.

AFAIK, sabs' options 1 and 3 are RAW (the only RAW, by my unsupportable interpretation). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)