Should This Have A Wireless Bonus?, A Comprehensive Look At Every Extant Piece of 'Ware Options

[Wired_SR_AEGIS]

Your post...just wow. Take it easy man.

Hehehe, okay. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

At the end of the day, I'm just saying there's more to consider than just the underlying model for how things communicate.

What they communicate, how they operate on what they communicate, etc, are all important questions to answer as well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

[Cochise]

or I can say .. "Because .. TECHNOLOGY!" ?

Then you're in the realm of handwavium, that quite obviously breaks immersion / suspension of disbelief for others.

I get the whole arguments around the OSI model, it bored the crap outta me learning that bastard ... but, what happens when we completely surpass what it offers ?

I mean .. TCP/IP can't last forever, new and better protocols come with new and better technology.

The problem there being, that TCP/IP is not what the OSI model is about. TCP/IP is just an implementation that happens to (somewhat) adhere to the abstract concept that is formed by said model. The model itself can be applied to virtually any form of communication and so far nobody has provided one that is "better" nor has this model been proven to be faulty.

Who is to say that in 70 years, we haven't made wireless comms faster and more efficient than wired (and doesn't cause Cancer or turn you into a Ghoul)

Let's just say that for the most basic transportation layers (the physical cable - be it copper or even fibre material) that is extremely unlikely from a pure physics standpoint unless things like quantum entanglement are involved. SR technology has not introduced the latter and so far made the basic assumption that real world physics do apply. From a purely theoretical perspective it's possible to assume that transmission speed of wired and wireless transmissions can get identical on the pure physical layer ... but wireless tranmissions getting faster than wired ones on a physical level? That's pretty much impossible even under the known conditions that exist within the SR universe.

Now you can try to claim that - for unknown reasons - the SR physicist have found a way that turns our real world knowledge upside down, but quite obviously there are many players who would simply not buy that story. So neither your "cause TECHNOLOGY" nor the "cause it's the future" will satisfy that particular group of players.

The alternative is what someone who I won't personally adress anymore tries to stipulate in order to provide such an explaination that sounds reasonable enough not to break their immersion / suspension of disbelief. : The communication between two distinct endpoints is slower when the two devices try to communicate directly, whereas it becomes faster when the communication is established over a route where both devices are able to offload the computational requirements onto a mesh system. Now this stipulation has various problems, not just from a technical standpoint but also from within the game universe and its world logic. Part of those problems can be explained with the OSI model quite well:

1. Since "we" more or less removed the PHY-layer as plausible reason for differences in transmission speed (and thus also for system responsiveness), the slowing effect must occur on higher levels ... which fits with the stipulated situation, but doesn't provide the required explaination.
2. Just as the transmission medium becomes irrelevant, it's not actually plausible that a protocol / computational power induced slow down can occur on layers 2 and 3 (data link and network layer), because if the involved devices actually do have problems there, they simply cannot adress other devices regardless of whether the next availible communication point is the directly linked second device or any of the mesh nodes that would have to route the transmission to the second device. So the hinderance must be further up the chain.
3. The first potential candicate would be on the transport layer that is responsible for establishing end-to-end connections (which we desire when we want two devices to "talk" with each other. You actually could plausibly stipulate protocol bloat that leads to computational requirements that could exceed the locally availible power for getting system responses within desired timeframes by introducing numerous flow control mechanisms, error detection and lots of other stuff ... thus moving the computation times - as absurd as it might sound - back into microsecond realms for a single packet instead of the nanosecond frames we see these days (and could also be assumed to be vastly shorter in the future if we use your "it's the future" approach). Any higher up layer except for the highest (application layer) would - in theory - be equally "suitable" for the introduction of protocol bloat ... So "we" will have to deal with that further down.
4. The highest layer doesn't quite qualify, because this is the layer where the pure data that represents the information, that is intended to be transported between our two devices, is of interest. One of the highly debated information transmissions in threads like this is the "signal" that causes a chemical seal to activate / deactivate. For the sake of this discussion lets just ignore the fact that the firmware of such a circuitry would certainly not implement the full seven layers, but rather collapse anything above layer 4 into one block. Let's also say that the information really has to travel up there in order to deliver the 1 (maximum 2) Bit information that causes a physical switch between two states. Interestingly enough the fact that such a change of state only requires such a minimal amount of information demonstrates quite well that something like that will cause serious overhead once the transmission is implemented in such a complex manner.

Now let's see where the (main) problem lies with the assumption of the stipulated protocol bloat in no. 3 with regards to the SR universe's plausibility. Questions would be:

1. Why on earth the SR hackers/deckers are supposed to be capable to tamper with all transmission protocols and technolgies for purposes of Matrix decking and even attacking matrix-enabled devices, but fail to do so when trying to provide a direct wired or wireless point-to-point connection between the two devices we're talking about in order prevent the actions I just mentioned?
2. What prevents them from hacking the involved firm- and software?
3. On a more general level, which particular trait of the Matrix protocol makes impossible to bypass protocol limitation while still being hackable?
4. What particular reason makes the megacorps actually implement something like that within their own realms of security? Sure, they'd like the information as well as the control possibilties for standard consumer products, but having GOD putting its hands around their neck within their private turf is just not plausible, just as it is implausible that they would not try to provide their own security staff with the majority of the debates "bonuses" while simultaniously shutting down unwanted Matrix access within their facilities?
5. If there is no satisfactory answer to the previous questions: Where's the black market where the bypassing technologies are traded? Because that's where professional criminals like runners would go first ... right before trying to get their hands on the technology itself by getting it from corp security with brute force.
6. What happens to the concept of matrix bonuses as incentive for opening up to combat hacks, once bypassing technologies enter the scene?

Note that these questions are not even remotely touching an explicit implementation and even someone with a gamist attitude might find at least some of them worthy enough to demand a satisfying answer.

[Epicedion]

Christ, people, knock off the comp sci. All computers that operated on what we would consider recognizable architecture exploded in like 2035 in this setting.

[Wired_SR_AEGIS]

The alternative is what someone who I won't personally adress anymore tries to stipulate in order to provide such an explaination that sounds reasonable enough not to break their immersion / suspension of disbelief. : The communication between two distinct endpoints is slower when the two devices try to communicate directly, whereas it becomes faster when the communication is established over a route where both devices are able to offload the computational requirements onto a mesh system. Now this stipulation has various problems, not just from a technical standpoint but also from within the game universe and its world logic. Part of those problems can be explained with the OSI model quite well:

What our Network Engineer friend has forgotten, which is not uncommon for the profession, is that Information does not exist for the purpose of being transmitted across a network. The network exists for the sole purpose of transmitting Information.

Therefore, the fundamental failure of addressing this subject in terms solely related to network communication, is that once any given model of networking has passed whatever it is transmitting into its upper most bounds, a new logical construct takes that transmission and performs additional operations upon it.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

[Cochise]

What our Network Engineer friend has forgotten, which is not uncommon for the profession, is that Information does not exist for the purpose of being transmitted across a network. The network exists for the sole purpose of transmitting Information.

Despite the potential confusion as to why I'm adressing you now: I will have to ask you once more to stop your ad hominem attacks and claims about what I might have "forgotten". Because that is quite obviously against TOS ... And just a little hint: Just because I referenced senior network engineering knowlegde that doesn't automatically make me one ...

[Wired_SR_AEGIS]

Despite the potential confusion as to why I'm adressing you now: I will have to ask you once more to stop your ad hominem attacks and claims about what I might have "forgotten". Because that is quite obviously against TOS ... And just a little hint: Just because I referenced senior network engineering knowlegde that doesn't automatically make me one ...

Understood. No problem, let me amend my statement then:

What the statement put forward by our non-Senior-Network-Engineer has not addressed is that: Information does not exist for the sake of networking. Networking exists for the sake of Information.

And thus to answer questions that include, but exceed, network communication models requires that the system discussed must be viewed and discussed holistically.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

[Shinobi Killfist]

... Where the hell does this notion that all "designed from a game perspective" games inherently have the flaws of DnD4e come from? It's fucking ludicrous, if you'll pardon the language.

Its almost like you didn't read what I was quoting. Yes its ludicrous, that was the point. It is as ludricrous as saying if it has a fluff perspective it would be like cosmic patrol.

[RHat]

Might be more a lack of context - I'm not familiar with Cosmic Patrol. However, if Shadowrun's rules spun out of a fluff perspective, it would be very, very complicated. Every tradition would need to have different mechanics for their magic and spirits (UMT having been brought in the justify a gamist change in the fluff), which isn't much of a problem with 2 traditions but with the existing variety... Kinda crazy. And that's just one example.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Might be more a lack of context - I'm not familiar with Cosmic Patrol. However, if Shadowrun's rules spun out of a fluff perspective, it would be very, very complicated. Every tradition would need to have different mechanics for their magic and spirits (UMT having been brought in the justify a gamist change in the fluff), which isn't much of a problem with 2 traditions but with the existing variety... Kinda crazy. And that's just one example.

Sure and if it was spun just out of the rules without tying it to the fluf at all it would have an absurd quality as well. SR did a good job of trying to make sure the rules were solid but supported the fluff. IMO all RPGs should shoot for that. It is a game so I want a smooth gaming experience, but it is role playing so the rules should not be so jarring that they hinder it. You can trend one way or the other and still have a good game its going to the extreme on one side where things tend to get skewed into something weird.

[RHat]

Right, but hacking has had a few noteworthy game side issues for a while now that, without these changes, would actually be worsened in SR5. So the question becomes: where is the balance between severity of a game issue and lack of quality of the fluff explanation?

[Moirdryd]

That's exactly how the magic system used to be RHat.

[RHat]

That's exactly how the magic system used to be RHat.

Where, as I noted, there were basically just the two traditions. In order to expand that into the wonderful variety seen in SR4, there were two options:

(1) Custom write rules for each tradition and provide a complex framework for tradition design. [Simulationist]
(2) Make the traditions rely on the same mechanical underpinnings. [Gamist]

One of those two is untenable. So let's take this as a case study for a second - how bad would the fluff explanation accompanying option 2 have to be before it was no longer worth the goal?

I'm still mystified as to why people dismiss perfectly reasonable explanations for some of the bonuses, but still.

[Moirdryd]

In SR3 you had several Traditions with Rulesets that made them work differently to the others. 12 in total.

Shaman (Core + 4 Path variations MitS)
Mage (Core + 2 Path Variations MitS)
Wuxing (MitS)
Voodoo (MitS)
Obeyifa (MitS)
Path of the Wheel (MitS)

There were also several "Flavour" Traditions that used the Core Mage or Shaman rules with minor variations (less so than the Path options) or used the Path option with differant materials.

Aboriginal Magic
Aztecs Magic
Black Magic
Chaos Magic
Christian Magic
Druidic Magic
Gypsy Magic
Hawaiian Magic
Hindu Magic
Islamic Magic
Norse Nagic
Qabbalistic Magic
Rastafarian Magic
Shinto Magic
Witchcraft

Some of the above function just like the RP tradition flavour does in SR4, others also had their own little sub rules. Then there was also Psionics.

[Sendaz]

In SR3 you had several Traditions with Rulesets that made them work differently to the others. 12 in total.

Shaman (Core + 4 Path variations MitS)
Mage (Core + 2 Path Variations MitS)
Wuxing (MitS)
Voodoo (MitS)
Obeyifa (MitS)
Path of the Wheel (MitS)

There were also several "Flavour" Traditions that used the Core Mage or Shaman rules with minor variations (less so than the Path options) or used the Path option with differant materials.

Aboriginal Magic
Aztecs Magic
Black Magic
Chaos Magic
Christian Magic
Druidic Magic
Gypsy Magic
Hawaiian Magic
Hindu Magic
Islamic Magic
Norse Nagic
Qabbalistic Magic
Rastafarian Magic
Shinto Magic
Witchcraft

Some of the above function just like the RP tradition flavour does in SR4, others also had their own little sub rules. Then there was also Psionics.

And let's not forget the Mad Mages, ranging from guys making up their own tradition following made up books like the Necronomicon to the truly bat-s**t crazy magical psychopath who operate on a totally different level and are so far out there, even the local twisted and toxics move away because the neighbourhood is going too far downhill even for them. Thankfully these wackos are very rare and usually burn up or are taken down fairly quickly by the rest of the magic community, one of the few times you will see active cooperation between some groups.

[Moirdryd]

Well yeah, the NPC Traditions of Mad, Blood and Toxic. (shockingly Insect were just Shaman).

[Shinobi Killfist]

Right, but hacking has had a few noteworthy game side issues for a while now that, without these changes, would actually be worsened in SR5. So the question becomes: where is the balance between severity of a game issue and lack of quality of the fluff explanation?

I think from what I've seen on the whole the matrix is good on the rules/fluff side in SR5. My primary issue with wireless bonuses is with the cyber and a couple pieces of gear. The cyber is mainly because the benefits they gain are largely on/off switch style benefits that the DNI you have base don it being cyber wold handle far better than a matrix connection. If smart guns links benefit was you can ignore up to medium cover since outside feeds can more accurately pinpoint a partially seen objects location, hey awesome that makes sense. Instead we get +2 dice which is kind of reflective of having a cross hairs on the target with some wind speed excuse. But at least it isn’t really bad like the open close commands on your cyber. Things like fingertip compartment might be something like can be activated even if your cyber is otherwise disabled. I think a lot of people are letting their dislike of this cloud things so every item or almost every item looks bad. Like the hazmat suit analyzing what is around you. How doesn't that make sense, the chemical analyzer on your suit sees X particles, it goes to the matrix and sees oh X particles are nuero stun, don;t take the suit off dude. On the other hand people who like it are coming up with pretty far fetched reasons why even the fingertip compartment makes sense over DNI.

[Stahlseele]

Problem with your argument there:
The suit does not automagically seal up if it's connected to the matrix and it smells something bad . .
Because
a) it changes the action you need to take to seal it up from one to another and does not do it for you.
b) it does not actually have any sensors, much less that many moving parts needing to seal up at all.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Problem with your argument there:
The suit does not automagically seal up if it's connected to the matrix and it smells something bad . .
Because
a) it changes the action you need to take to seal it up from one to another and does not do it for you.
b) it does not actually have any sensors, much less that many moving parts needing to seal up at all.

If you are responding to me I am not talking about the seal up part, but the hazmat suit can analyze what the air is like outside the suit. And that makes total sense to me. The speed based ones being faster than DNI don't make any sense.

[Stahlseele]

But the Suit CAN'T analyze that stuff right?
Or does it say it has these Sensorics build into it in the description?
A HazMat Suit only does one thing. That is making you your own little bit of liveable Space.
And usually, it is sealed up per default, not optional right?
Compare to a Space-Suit. Once put onj completely, it is a sealed up environment.
It does not wait untill you go out to space and says:"oh, hey, look, a hard vacuum, you should close me up propperly now!"
Because if the HazMat Suit/Chem Seal worked that way, it would not work at all.
As soon as the danger is detected, chances are good you were already exposed to it. Too late to suit up now that you had your first lung full . .

[Not of this Worl...]

Well yeah, the NPC Traditions of Mad, Blood and Toxic. (shockingly Insect were just Shaman).

So were Toxics until SR4 because they lost any meaningful distinction.

Honestly I think Shadowrun needs two systems like in SR1, the rest just becomes so much rules bloat. The mentor additions to SR5 is a good start, but I would like to see it go a lot further. Particularly in the area of Summoning.

But more on topic it shouldn't have a wireless bonus (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[RHat]

I think from what I've seen on the whole the matrix is good on the rules/fluff side in SR5. My primary issue with wireless bonuses is with the cyber and a couple pieces of gear. The cyber is mainly because the benefits they gain are largely on/off switch style benefits that the DNI you have base don it being cyber wold handle far better than a matrix connection. If smart guns links benefit was you can ignore up to medium cover since outside feeds can more accurately pinpoint a partially seen objects location, hey awesome that makes sense. Instead we get +2 dice which is kind of reflective of having a cross hairs on the target with some wind speed excuse. But at least it isn’t really bad like the open close commands on your cyber. Things like fingertip compartment might be something like can be activated even if your cyber is otherwise disabled. I think a lot of people are letting their dislike of this cloud things so every item or almost every item looks bad. Like the hazmat suit analyzing what is around you. How doesn't that make sense, the chemical analyzer on your suit sees X particles, it goes to the matrix and sees oh X particles are nuero stun, don;t take the suit off dude. On the other hand people who like it are coming up with pretty far fetched reasons why even the fingertip compartment makes sense over DNI.

The relatively few on/off style ones are about the only ones I cannot find a satisfactory explanation for...