Problems with Decking in SR4.5, Discuss your complaints here. Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Where did I say you didn't? I said you're using circular logic. You're saying it's easy because you do it, and you do it because it's easy.

BTW: Please stop bolding my name. It sounds aggressive and insulting.

Post 139, and I quote:

Given that he claims to avoid character optimization, he may simply not realize all the benefits of decking via hot sim VR.

You say that I likely do not know the benefits of HotSim VR. Which is what I replied to. *shrug*

We have had this conversation before, and since I emphasize the names of those I respond to, all the time, you will just have to live with it. *shrug*

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

also known as windows 95, 98 and ME (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Which is why a Company will not use these Particular OS's for the backbone of their infrastructure if they are smart. *shrug*

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Playing More Hackers -> More On-Site Hacks

This is an irrelevant and pointless argument known as a red herring.

Oh, and actually you did say on-site was easier in 4th. It is equivalent to saying that you go to the beach more now that you've moved from Idaho to California. Idaho doesn't have any f*ing beaches to go to and has no bearing on whether or not the California beaches are better or worse than New Jersey's.


I disagree.

Not a red hering. It is a truth. Simple as that.
2nd/3rd Edition sucked for Hacking, remotely or otherwise becasue the Game Mechanic forced a lot of 1-on-1 time between GM and Player while others went and did their own thing (Complaints abound about that particular issue). SR4/SR4A changed that by simplifying the system. If the System is Simpler/Easier, the resulting game play will be Simpler/Easier.

I do think Hacking on-site is easier in 4th Edition (than previous editions)... Easier System makes for Easier Play. *shrug*

And California's Beaches ARE better than New Jersey's. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If the system does not believe the hacker to be a legitimate user, why the hell is he still there and not already getting disconnected while being whacked by IC?

Becasue he is stealthing through the System. That is what hackers do.

Establishing a set of rules to which the world adheres makes it bland and flavorless?

There are already a set of rules to which the world adheres. Unfortunately, many people do not like them "becasue they know computers, and they do not work that way." Me, I don't care how real world computers work, it is irrelevant to the game, and the system they present. When it diverges from reality, I don't really care.

@Fatum

It doesn't take skills at 5+ to successfully probe every possible node. Even with the "-1 per consecutive roll", having an astonishing pool of eight dice results in a grand total of 36 dice rolled, i.e. 12 successes on average. The problem is that the total number of dice rolled increases to the square (young Gauss' formula), whereas the threshold increases linearly. Easy to solve though, just make the threshold for probing System+Firewall²

Since anything really interesting will likely be on a system that possess Ratings above 6, this is really not that big of a deal, as far as I am concerned. You can obtain access all you like by the Slow hack Probe in those systems. It makes no never mind to me, because the FIRST time they try to do something, it is likely they will be caught and the system will go to work on them (this is borne out, time and again, by experience over the years I have played 4th Edition). If it is a low grade system, who really cares at that point?

[Fatum]

It doesn't take skills at 5+ to successfully probe every possible node. Even with the "-1 per consecutive roll", having an astonishing pool of eight dice results in a grand total of 36 dice rolled, i.e. 12 successes on average. The problem is that the total number of dice rolled increases to the square (young Gauss' formula), whereas the threshold increases linearly. Easy to solve though, just make the threshold for probing System+Firewall²

While I see no problem with hackers always succeeding in finding their way into a node given a few hours (hey, if their decryption's this good, why not exploits?), I just have to point out that it's absolutely not like starting characters are street gutter trash, so them being able to actually hack into top nodes is expected and reasonable.

[Draco18s]

Not a red hering. It is a truth. Simple as that.
2nd/3rd Edition sucked for Hacking, remotely or otherwise becasue the Game Mechanic forced a lot of 1-on-1 time between GM and Player while others went and did their own thing (Complaints abound about that particular issue). SR4/SR4A changed that by simplifying the system. If the System is Simpler/Easier, the resulting game play will be Simpler/Easier.

Wow.

It took a week of me asking the same god damn question over and over before I finally got a response to it.

And now I can finally pick it apart.

Yes the system got easier.
Yes the system uses the same time scale.
But no, the hacker still does his hack-y thing while everyone else gets pizza -OR- the hacker is better off performing non-hack actions to achieve greater results.*

And California's Beaches ARE better than New Jersey's. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That may be, but saying that CA's are better because "now you go to the beach more, after moving from Idaho" doesn't really prove that.

*I can perform 6+ rolls over the course of two combat rounds in order to hack one thing, or I can make 6 rolls shooting a gun. Hmmm.

[Cain]

Post 139, and I quote:


You say that I likely do not know the benefits of HotSim VR. Which is what I replied to. *shrug*

We have had this conversation before, and since I emphasize the names of those I respond to, all the time, you will just have to live with it. *shrug*

No, you went off on how I said you did not know the benefits of hot sim. That's not what I said.

And referring to me in the bold is still aggressive and rude, especially since both I and the mods have asked you to stop it. It's like referring to Patrick Goodman as "Pat"; you might shorten everyone's name, but it's still rude.

Not a red hering. It is a truth. Simple as that.
2nd/3rd Edition sucked for Hacking, remotely or otherwise becasue the Game Mechanic forced a lot of 1-on-1 time between GM and Player while others went and did their own thing (Complaints abound about that particular issue). SR4/SR4A changed that by simplifying the system. If the System is Simpler/Easier, the resulting game play will be Simpler/Easier.

I do think Hacking on-site is easier in 4th Edition (than previous editions)... Easier System makes for Easier Play. *shrug*

Does not follow. 4.5's system isn't easier or simpler (the core mechanic arguably is, but the actual rules aren't) and I have more issues with the Pizza Problem in 4.5 than I ever had in SR2-3. So, unless you have evidence beyond personal anecdote, your argument fails.

[Epicedion]

Wow.

It took a week of me asking the same god damn question over and over before I finally got a response to it.

And now I can finally pick it apart.

Yes the system got easier.
Yes the system uses the same time scale.
But no, the hacker still does his hack-y thing while everyone else gets pizza -OR- the hacker is better off performing non-hack actions to achieve greater results.*

I actually find the system to be less simple because they scattered the various rules away from a very basic mechanic: you used to just roll against the ACIFS value for the right system minus your program rating, which was dead simple, and you didn't usually have to look up much because the categories were obvious (browse vs index to find a file, for example). The newer system is full of pretty arbitrary extended test threshold values, paired system ratings, etc, which either have to be memorized or looked up every time (1 written value that's universally applicable is better than a value that has to be added to another value, since that's quite possibly not obvious).

Hacking a system in SR3 can be as simple as: Deception vs Access, Browse vs Index, Read/Write vs File. If you're taking hours to do basic info runs, that's more the fault of the GM. There's nothing built into the system that should make this stuff take any longer than SR4, and pretty much all the rules you need would fit on one panel of a GM screen.

Time scale is irrelevant, at least since 3d edition, since decking initiative and meat initiative are on the same scale -- this means there's no difference between the mid-run integration of the two.

[Epicedion]

Does not follow. 4.5's system isn't easier or simpler (the core mechanic arguably is, but the actual rules aren't) and I have more issues with the Pizza Problem in 4.5 than I ever had in SR2-3. So, unless you have evidence beyond personal anecdote, your argument fails.

Emphasis mine. This is squarely on the head. The actual rules built around the core mechanic are more complicated. They require more lookups and more rolling of more dice, and it's totally the fault of the fixed target number. The only way to substantially affect the difficulty is to increase/decrease the threshold (increasing the dice pool around a threshold of 1, beyond a certain point, has no statistical impact, and decreasing the dice pool makes you jump from at worst a 1/3 chance to 0 chance, bypassing the possible-but-highly-improbable situation entirely). To solve this, a lot of things were made into extended tests (to allow high thresholds), and each extended test gets its own arbitrary threshold. Yes it's simpler to count the successes, but it's more complicated to figure what those successes mean.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Wow.

It took a week of me asking the same god damn question over and over before I finally got a response to it.

Apparently you missed the other responses to your complaint. *shrug*

And now I can finally pick it apart.

Yes the system got easier.
Yes the system uses the same time scale.
But no, the hacker still does his hack-y thing while everyone else gets pizza -OR- the hacker is better off performing non-hack actions to achieve greater results.*

*I can perform 6+ rolls over the course of two combat rounds in order to hack one thing, or I can make 6 rolls shooting a gun. Hmmm.

And yet, the Hacker is not the gun bunny. If he was a gun bunny, then yes, he could shoot instead, but becasue he is a HACKER, he spends his time hacking instead. You seem to miss the distinction. The hacker is not there to shoot, he is there to Hack. *shrug*

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Does not follow. 4.5's system isn't easier or simpler (the core mechanic arguably is, but the actual rules aren't) and I have more issues with the Pizza Problem in 4.5 than I ever had in SR2-3. So, unless you have evidence beyond personal anecdote, your argument fails.

And I continue to disagree with you on that one. The mechanics are easier, and it is nice to see that you agree with me on that at least. You may have more issues with Pizza Time in 4A, but I do not, and neither does any other table I have played at. And since your counterargument is nothing but pure anecdote as well (or personal experience, if you prefer), it is obviously not going to be resolved betwen us. No worries. Enjoy your game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) . *shrug*

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Emphasis mine. This is squarely on the head. The actual rules built around the core mechanic are more complicated. They require more lookups and more rolling of more dice, and it's totally the fault of the fixed target number. The only way to substantially affect the difficulty is to increase/decrease the threshold (increasing the dice pool around a threshold of 1, beyond a certain point, has no statistical impact, and decreasing the dice pool makes you jump from at worst a 1/3 chance to 0 chance, bypassing the possible-but-highly-improbable situation entirely). To solve this, a lot of things were made into extended tests (to allow high thresholds), and each extended test gets its own arbitrary threshold. Yes it's simpler to count the successes, but it's more complicated to figure what those successes mean.

Perhaps you have issues with this. I do not. *shrug*
We will not solve this issue between us, becasue we will never come to a consensus.
No worries. Have a great game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I actually find the system to be less simple because they scattered the various rules away from a very basic mechanic: you used to just roll against the ACIFS value for the right system minus your program rating, which was dead simple, and you didn't usually have to look up much because the categories were obvious (browse vs index to find a file, for example). The newer system is full of pretty arbitrary extended test threshold values, paired system ratings, etc, which either have to be memorized or looked up every time (1 written value that's universally applicable is better than a value that has to be added to another value, since that's quite possibly not obvious).

Hacking a system in SR3 can be as simple as: Deception vs Access, Browse vs Index, Read/Write vs File. If you're taking hours to do basic info runs, that's more the fault of the GM. There's nothing built into the system that should make this stuff take any longer than SR4, and pretty much all the rules you need would fit on one panel of a GM screen.

Time scale is irrelevant, at least since 3d edition, since decking initiative and meat initiative are on the same scale -- this means there's no difference between the mid-run integration of the two.

Missed this one, sorry.

Again, you are talking personal preference. Most of my issue with previous editions Hacking was the Variable TN. I HATE THAT SYSTEM. Therefore, anything that uses tha tsystem is automatically inferior to one that doesn't. I hated ACIFS as well. And the fact that the GM STILL had to have alone time with the hacker sucked. And I am not the only one that has that opinion. *shrug*

We have different ideas on what makes a workable system. Neither of us will convince the other that their system is the one to use. That is okay. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Epicedion]

Missed this one, sorry.

Again, you are talking personal preference. Most of my issue with previous editions Hacking was the Variable TN. I HATE THAT SYSTEM. Therefore, anything that uses tha tsystem is automatically inferior to one that doesn't. I hated ACIFS as well. And the fact that the GM STILL had to have alone time with the hacker sucked. And I am not the only one that has that opinion. *shrug*

We have different ideas on what makes a workable system. Neither of us will convince the other that their system is the one to use. That is okay. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Are you just compulsively responding to stuff at this point?

[Halinn]

Are you just compulsively responding to stuff at this point?

Are you seriously attacking him for replying to things in a forum thread he's participating in?

[Fatum]

Can we please return from discussing personal preferences in gaming (and each other) to maybe actual problems with hacking in 4e?

[Cain]

And I continue to disagree with you on that one. The mechanics are easier, and it is nice to see that you agree with me on that at least. You may have more issues with Pizza Time in 4A, but I do not, and neither does any other table I have played at. And since your counterargument is nothing but pure anecdote as well (or personal experience, if you prefer), it is obviously not going to be resolved betwen us. No worries. Enjoy your game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) . *shrug*

I dispute that the core mechaniic is simpler, but I acknowledge that there's room for argument on that point. That said, I ran official Missions games, and I had the Pizza problem every time. My solution has been to chuck the rules, as has been the solution of many people here.

You're free to disagree, but you're not just disagreeing with me.

Again, you are talking personal preference. Most of my issue with previous editions Hacking was the Variable TN. I HATE THAT SYSTEM. Therefore, anything that uses tha tsystem is automatically inferior to one that doesn't. I hated ACIFS as well. And the fact that the GM STILL had to have alone time with the hacker sucked. And I am not the only one that has that opinion. *shrug*

We have different ideas on what makes a workable system. Neither of us will convince the other that their system is the one to use. That is okay. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ah, I see. You're taking your dislike of variable TN's and projecting it onto the entire system.

Look, you like fixed TN's better. That's fine. But that doesn't mean they're inherently better, or easier, or simpler. That also does not mean that any system built on fixed TN's is superior, either. I had less alone time with the decker in SR2-3 than in SR4.5, and I'm not the only one here with that experience.

For example, I hated the SR2-3 Maneuver Score with a fiery burning passion. Compared to that, SR4.5's Chase Combat seems a lot simpler and easier. However, it doesn't work either. Just because you couldn't get variable TN's doesn't mean a non-variable TN system will be workable, easier, or superior. Chase Combat still doesn't work, even though they jettisoned everything I despised. In the same vein, just because they moved to a fixed TN Matrix system doesn't mean it works any better-- and in the experience of everyone but you, it still has serious problems. That's why I conclude that you must be using house rules and home fixes, and are refusing to acknowledge or admit it to us, lest you have to admit there's flaws in a fixed TN system.

[Halinn]

The main issue here, I think, is that the actual operation of the Matrix is open to a lot of interpretation (how accessible is simple data, how are nodes protected, what exactly can/can't be done with an admin account, what information isn't on the 'trix, etc.), which means that a lot of things that mean Pizza Time in some groups, simply don't in others, while both groups are following the rules.
Rules-wise, I think it's been settled pretty clearly by now that there isn't any single feature of the SR4 Matrix that made decking/hacking remotely less or more desirable, so any major change in them either has to be in the general mechanics (i.e. if hacking is simpler [and thus takes less time], hacking while running becomes more viable, because it is something that can be done without excluding the group for too long), or in a change of fluff (for example, if the wireless matrix is pervasive enough that all nodes are wireless, the mutual signal range rules, combined with how 'chaining' MSR to some specific node works, makes it unnecessary to get close). It seems fair to say that there's no consensus on either.

[kzt]

The main issue here, I think, is that the actual operation of the Matrix is open to a lot of interpretation (how accessible is simple data, how are nodes protected, what exactly can/can't be done with an admin account, what information isn't on the 'trix, etc.), which means that a lot of things that mean Pizza Time in some groups, simply don't in others, while both groups are following the rules.

That's why a clear model based on some sort of real-world structure would be really helpful. Not that the rules should attempt to simulate the model, but it's a lot easier to figure out how to adjudicate something if you have something in the real world that you can use to relate to the issue at hand rather than trying to read the minds of the various rules writers as to what they though Mr Mechanical Typewriter meant 35 years ago when he wrote crazy stuff about how computers had to operate in order to make his plot work.

[Cain]

The main issue here, I think, is that the actual operation of the Matrix is open to a lot of interpretation (how accessible is simple data, how are nodes protected, what exactly can/can't be done with an admin account, what information isn't on the 'trix, etc.), which means that a lot of things that mean Pizza Time in some groups, simply don't in others, while both groups are following the rules.
Rules-wise, I think it's been settled pretty clearly by now that there isn't any single feature of the SR4 Matrix that made decking/hacking remotely less or more desirable, so any major change in them either has to be in the general mechanics (i.e. if hacking is simpler [and thus takes less time], hacking while running becomes more viable, because it is something that can be done without excluding the group for too long), or in a change of fluff (for example, if the wireless matrix is pervasive enough that all nodes are wireless, the mutual signal range rules, combined with how 'chaining' MSR to some specific node works, makes it unnecessary to get close). It seems fair to say that there's no consensus on either.

Well, I can say that it's definitely not any faster, simply because of the vast number of Extended tests the decker has to make. There's certainly a lot of hacking rolls that need to be made, and the cumulative time adds up.

Combat hacking of enemy gear/cyber is a prime example. It takes so many Extended tests (and a lot more rolls) to get anything done, you're better off shooting them six times than trying it.

[Falconer]

A critical point missed here.. is young gauss's law or not... once the dice pool hits 6 and under chances of glitch go up quite significantly... not only that given the cumulative nature of rolls and glitches... become increasingly more likely the longer a check goes on.

With 10 dice.. there are just over 60million possible combinations (6^10). In each case 5 results are not a 1 and 1 is setting the ratio at 5to1... so combin(10dice, A) * 5^(10-A).. A = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 787500, 131250, 15000, 1125, 50, and only 1 case of rolling 10 1's. (if you sum all the results going from A = 0 to 10... you end up with 6^10 power so you've covered 100% of the probabilities!).
Running the statistics.. works out to just over a ~1.53% of a glitch. (934926 results with 5 or more 1's... out of 60,466,176)
With 9 dice... ~1% (due to a freak of statistics that you're more likely to roll 5 1's on 10 dice than on 9 the odd number round up)
With 8 dice... ~3%
With 7 dice... ~1.8%
With 6 dice... ~6.1%
With 5 dice... ~3.5%
With 4 dice... ~13.5%

But my point above is that a glitch on any of the extended tests results in glitch on the entire test... and even starting at 10 and only working your way down to 8 or 7... results in about a 7.1% chance of 1 or more glitches. (0.985*0.99*0.97*0.982== .929)... which is a reasonably significant chance.

So no I don't buy all this of even with gausses law of N^2 dice... that you get (N^2)/3 successes with no complications.


Extended tests are very dangerous with substantially increased chances of one or more glitches... which is why that tangent on the guard power and the matrix got started way back either in this thread or the other main thread. Hacking in particular uses quite a lot of them.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

If you go all way down to zero from 10+ dice, your glitch chance is about 61%.

[Draco18s]

But my point above is that a glitch on any of the extended tests results in glitch on the entire test...

Untrue.
A glitch on an extended test means something else. Generally it's a -1 success kind of deal.

[Dolanar]

you may be thinking of a critical glitch which usually forces you to reset your overall successes.

[Falconer]

Cite it Draco18s or you're having flawed recall/making up a glitch result which is up to the GM.

Page 62 says nothing of the sort.

Page 64 is even more explicit with some suggestions as possible glitch results... and suggests 1d6 (not a mere 1) success as another possibility. Both results not being mutually exclusive either.

Many extended tests relevent to this section.. hacking/spoofing lifestyle/writing software have some very specific results specified if a glitch results. (software gets bugs.. spoofing a lifestyle example specifically results in a glitch needing to restart all over).


If you're slow probing a firewall and glitch... for example I'm probably going to give the firewall + analyze a crack at your stealth and subtract 1d6 secretly from your successes by raising your threshold. Not fatal... but definitely an impediment.

If I can think of a funny way to do it to entertain everyone... even better.