Wireless bonus rules suck., Lets write the tacnet rules they should have used. Options

[Shadow Knight]

Sure there would. DNI them together and let them share processing power (after all, that is the logic of the wireless bonus as presented, just sharing Matrix processing power, rather than their own onboard processing). Just like Before. Problem Solved. WITHOUT the stupidity of non-sensical Wireless Bonuses.

Which is how they used to work. WR/RE worked fine with absolutely no wireless connection in the previous edition. The wireless bonus should be something new that never existed before and would actually make sense to need a network connection. The way wireless bonuses work now do not make any sense at all.

[SpellBinder]

I also find it interesting that a device you are holding or last used magically somehow gets to use your Mental attributes in the opposed tests. Were the developers assuming that everyone and their grandmothers were using sim modules and trodes along with whatever wireless gear they have?

[Sendaz]

'Your Mama uses Trodes' sounds like smack talk (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Blade]

I also find it interesting that a device you are holding or last used magically somehow gets to use your Mental attributes in the opposed tests. Were the developers assuming that everyone and their grandmothers were using sim modules and trodes along with whatever wireless gear they have?

I think that the most mentally good you are the better you take care of your matrix security. Either that or Dwarf druids are just very concerned about their Matrix security.

[Jaid]

except that a device that is completely unguarded uses it's own device rating... which in some cases can be much better than using your mental stats.

[Sendaz]

Heeeeyyy.. so when he said Joe was dumber than a box of wireless rocks, he wasn't kidding?

[RHat]

I also find it interesting that a device you are holding or last used magically somehow gets to use your Mental attributes in the opposed tests. Were the developers assuming that everyone and their grandmothers were using sim modules and trodes along with whatever wireless gear they have?

The assumption, I think, is that you've done something to deviate from factory defaults (even including slaving) that means that you've set up your own security. Of course, by that logic, it should be possible to get the hacker to set up your security for you and thus have it all use his mental attributes...

[Jaid]

The assumption, I think, is that you've done something to deviate from factory defaults (even including slaving) that means that you've set up your own security. Of course, by that logic, it should be possible to get the hacker to set up your security for you and thus have it all use his mental attributes...

by that logic, it should also be possible to just leave your security settings on the factory defaults if that's the case. given the relative rarity of hackers with log/int/wil 7 compared to rating 7 commlinks (which probably shouldn't exist at all, given that *spaceships* aren't even rating 7), being able to choose to use the factory defaults is much better in most cases.

[Shadow Knight]

Can we get back to our Tacnet project? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) i like how it is shaping up. I was hoping to hear how Supine would do things mechanically. Because maybe they having something better than the dice pool option... So far the dice pool idea seems to work best.

[RHat]

by that logic, it should also be possible to just leave your security settings on the factory defaults if that's the case. given the relative rarity of hackers with log/int/wil 7 compared to rating 7 commlinks (which probably shouldn't exist at all, given that *spaceships* aren't even rating 7), being able to choose to use the factory defaults is much better in most cases.

Except not. At that point, for example, you don't get to slave anything to your commlink and it has only its own firewall to defend with, not the commlink's.

[Supine]

I like most of what you said. I would say a user or software can mark potential targets.

How would you implement it? as a dice pool seems to be a good way to do it.

The reason I don't like wireless bonuses. Is not because the concept is bad. but because what worked before with out the matrix now requires the matrix. Which is stupid. Now if their was new functionality that it actually made sense for the matrix to be needed I would be fine with it. I also would run your cyberware through your comlink. Because just like to day you don't stick your computer straight into the net if you have a brain. you don't stick your cyberware straight on to the net. you use a datajack to your comlink.

I wouldn't implement a single dicepool that applies to all tests of X variety, or whatever. It seems counter-intuitive to apply a physical bonus because the player knows something-- However, there are things that it would be able to do, in pure numbers. For one, if it's able to point out the location of an enemy you wouldn't otherwise be able to see (because he's behind a wall or obscured by smoke or whatever), then it could lower or remove the appropriate modifiers. I'd shy away from giving it many new kinds of statistics other than those we already have for Matrix gear, like a dicepool of its own, or something of that sort, because it would end up over-complicating the issue, and without a lot of care, it would assume a lot of false equivalences the same way statistics tend to do for everything else.
For me, though, the issue with wireless bonuses is firstly that many of them ignore in-universe and real-life science, and secondly because it assumes that the minor bonuses that it applies are actually worth keeping track of for game purposes, which I don't believe they are. I have a feeling I'll be messing with these rules quite a bit in the future.
In response to your later post, I think it would require quite a bit of effort, not that I'm not willing to put that effort towards it. There would be a number of programs that would only work for Tacnets, and there would be certain types of information that only certain types of sensors can gather, interpret, and relay. I'll definitely need some time to brew some ideas for all of it.

[Jaid]

Except not. At that point, for example, you don't get to slave anything to your commlink and it has only its own firewall to defend with, not the commlink's.

the device rating rule also applies if the device is absolutely 100% not able to be defended by it's owner at the time of the attack. so obviously the factory settings for security can still work just fine even when devices are slaved to it.

[Shadow Knight]

I wouldn't implement a single dicepool that applies to all tests of X variety, or whatever. It seems counter-intuitive to apply a physical bonus because the player knows something-- However, there are things that it would be able to do, in pure numbers. For one, if it's able to point out the location of an enemy you wouldn't otherwise be able to see (because he's behind a wall or obscured by smoke or whatever), then it could lower or remove the appropriate modifiers. I'd shy away from giving it many new kinds of statistics other than those we already have for Matrix gear, like a dicepool of its own, or something of that sort, because it would end up over-complicating the issue, and without a lot of care, it would assume a lot of false equivalences the same way statistics tend to do for everything else.
For me, though, the issue with wireless bonuses is firstly that many of them ignore in-universe and real-life science, and secondly because it assumes that the minor bonuses that it applies are actually worth keeping track of for game purposes, which I don't believe they are. I have a feeling I'll be messing with these rules quite a bit in the future.
In response to your later post, I think it would require quite a bit of effort, not that I'm not willing to put that effort towards it. There would be a number of programs that would only work for Tacnets, and there would be certain types of information that only certain types of sensors can gather, interpret, and relay. I'll definitely need some time to brew some ideas for all of it.

The dice pool method makes for a nice simple method of tracking things. Your way has you tracking all sorts of plusses and minuses and does not make for a tidy way of giving a method for hacking your opponent's tacnet.

[Supine]

The dice pool method makes for a nice simple method of tracking things. Your way has you tracking all sorts of plusses and minuses and does not make for a tidy way of giving a method for hacking your opponent's tacnet.

So you'd have a tacnet be the tool used to hack other tacnets? I would think the cyberdeck keeps that job, while the tacnet gets a hardware firewall or something of that nature. My only issue with the dicepool method is that it tends to paint in broad strokes where it might not necessarily make sense to do so. Keeping track of the amount of sensors attached to it and applying a bonus isn't really that bad, no, but it's not a very intuitive way of doing RPG math, so I try my best to avoid it. It's easier to think in terms of "can the tacnet see that? Yeah, there's a drone right over there. Apply the +2 to perception of whatever" than to do that, at least the way I see it. I'm also all for streamlining the bonuses that are suggested, but at the same time this has the potential to be one of the decker's more important jobs, so perhaps the complexity should be there in the bonuses. I've also been toying with the idea of how to run software on it, but I haven't done too much thinking as of yet.

[cryptoknight]

Can we get back to our Tacnet project? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) i like how it is shaping up. I was hoping to hear how Supine would do things mechanically. Because maybe they having something better than the dice pool option... So far the dice pool idea seems to work best.

Sure... what about Marks on the Tacnet that increase the cost of using a die from the pool?

i.e. I get 2 marks onto the opposition's tacnet. Taking a die from the tacnet now costs 3 from the pool

or perhaps have this as a third option?

[Shadow Knight]

So you'd have a tacnet be the tool used to hack other tacnets? I would think the cyberdeck keeps that job, while the tacnet gets a hardware firewall or something of that nature. My only issue with the dicepool method is that it tends to paint in broad strokes where it might not necessarily make sense to do so. Keeping track of the amount of sensors attached to it and applying a bonus isn't really that bad, no, but it's not a very intuitive way of doing RPG math, so I try my best to avoid it. It's easier to think in terms of "can the tacnet see that? Yeah, there's a drone right over there. Apply the +2 to perception of whatever" than to do that, at least the way I see it. I'm also all for streamlining the bonuses that are suggested, but at the same time this has the potential to be one of the decker's more important jobs, so perhaps the complexity should be there in the bonuses. I've also been toying with the idea of how to run software on it, but I haven't done too much thinking as of yet.

Have you been reading this thread at all? I suggest you start at the beginning because i don't think you are on the same page as the rest of us. I early on set some design goals. One of them that a tacnet be hackable by deckers thus giving deckers things to do in combat. Instead of using wireless bonuses which all do not make sense. .

[Supine]

Have you been reading this thread at all? I suggest you start at the beginning because i don't think you are on the same page as the rest of us. I early on set some design goals. One of them that a tacnet be hackable by deckers thus giving deckers things to do in combat. Instead of using wireless bonuses which all do not make sense. .

I was saying that it shouldn't replace the entire idea of the cyberdeck-- Whether it's a seperate hardware tool, or a piece of software on the deck, it shouldn't change the rules of hacking. Yes, it would be hackable, but so is everything else. Perhaps with one or two marks on a tacnet, the decker could use the sensors available on the opposing net.

[Shadow Knight]

I was saying that it shouldn't replace the entire idea of the cyberdeck-- Whether it's a seperate hardware tool, or a piece of software on the deck, it shouldn't change the rules of hacking. Yes, it would be hackable, but so is everything else. Perhaps with one or two marks on a tacnet, the decker could use the sensors available on the opposing net.

But Cyberware should not be on the matrix. Cyberware has no need to be on the Matrix. But if you are running a Tacnet you can run a datajack to your comlink that is running Tacnet software and share your feed.

[Werewindlefr]

But Cyberware should not be on the matrix. Cyberware has no need to be on the Matrix. But if you are running a Tacnet you can run a datajack to your comlink that is running Tacnet software and share your feed.

The point being that some cyberware can contribute to the TacNet, but needs to communicate with the TacNet to do so. Thus, there is incentive for exposing you stuff.

[Shadow Knight]

The point being that some cyberware can contribute to the TacNet, but needs to communicate with the TacNet to do so. Thus, there is incentive for exposing you stuff.

Wrong. Wrong Methodology and thinking.

The tacnet is the target. Not the cyberware. The tacnet is where you can screw things over in a far more effective manner than bricking one members cyber arm. Screw the tacnet and you screw the whole team. Get them shooting at their own members etc. Much more useful than hacking one persons eyes.

The point is not exposing cyberware. As no one would do that. You hook your cyberware to you comlink via DNI or skinlink etc. The comlink acts as your firewall and tacnet node. Hacking that nodes tacnet software to trasmit bad data or hacking the Deckers deck with the master node makes much more sense.

Do you guys plug your computer straight into the internet? or do you use a router because plugging a computer straight into the internet is a stupid idea? Why would you treat your cyberware any different than you treat your computer? Or would you like your cyberware infected by a random virus? Does that sound like a good way to treat that expensive cyberware?

[Jaid]

you seem to have misunderstood how the matrix works in SR5. it doesn't matter how many things you use in between a device and everything else. the entire matrix is based on the fact that you can bounce your signal through everyone else's stuff. it's just how the matrix works in SR5.

you can let your cyberware benefit from tougher security on your commlink (if you have one) or a cyberdeck (if you have one), or even someone else's commlink or cyberdeck, by slaving it (obviously, this requires some level of trust), but if it's talking over the matrix, it can be talked to via the matrix, without having to first hack anything else.

and frankly, given a choice between giving each member of a tacnet some minor penalties or largely shutting down some key member of the tacnet (say, a street sam who has crazy wired reflexes and a much larger dicepool and better weapons than the rest of the team) by bricking their eyes or something like that.

mind you, if they're not idiots, they won't put their eyes online to be bricked, whether it helps with the tacnet or not (the same benefits should be available from attaching a camera to your helmet or something like that), but if they do, i'd totally shut them down rather than worry about the decker.

and i would definitely strongly consider bricking a control rig if there was one, especially if the rigger is piloting a really scary drone or something.

i don't think it would be an always-obvious choice, and sometimes there wouldn't be any devices worth bricking connected to a tacnet (in fact, most often there won't be - people who use tacnets are generally people who need to worry about getting hacked far more than the average person). but if there was, i could definitely see beginning with shutting down whatever that device is.

[Shadow Knight]

you seem to have misunderstood how the matrix works in SR5. it doesn't matter how many things you use in between a device and everything else. the entire matrix is based on the fact that you can bounce your signal through everyone else's stuff. it's just how the matrix works in SR5.

you can let your cyberware benefit from tougher security on your commlink (if you have one) or a cyberdeck (if you have one), or even someone else's commlink or cyberdeck, by slaving it (obviously, this requires some level of trust), but if it's talking over the matrix, it can be talked to via the matrix, without having to first hack anything else.

and frankly, given a choice between giving each member of a tacnet some minor penalties or largely shutting down some key member of the tacnet (say, a street sam who has crazy wired reflexes and a much larger dicepool and better weapons than the rest of the team) by bricking their eyes or something like that.

mind you, if they're not idiots, they won't put their eyes online to be bricked, whether it helps with the tacnet or not (the same benefits should be available from attaching a camera to your helmet or something like that), but if they do, i'd totally shut them down rather than worry about the decker.

and i would definitely strongly consider bricking a control rig if there was one, especially if the rigger is piloting a really scary drone or something.

i don't think it would be an always-obvious choice, and sometimes there wouldn't be any devices worth bricking connected to a tacnet (in fact, most often there won't be - people who use tacnets are generally people who need to worry about getting hacked far more than the average person). but if there was, i could definitely see beginning with shutting down whatever that device is.

Proof that the people who wrote the book know nothing about computer security. I don't care how they claim the matrix works. Only an idiot would design a network in that insecure method. What you are describing is less secure not more secure. Which belies the whole premise of the new matrix being more secure.

[Supine]

But Cyberware should not be on the matrix.

Neither should pacemakers.

[Jaid]

the matrix has a 100% detection rate and a guaranteed boot to the head for anyone who doesn't get out soon enough as far as hacking is concerned.

that's pretty damned good.

and as far as designing everything to pass everything along, given the rate at which they're having to replace the matrix, i'd say a solution where your customers buy all the infrastructure probably sounds pretty good to them. it's less secure for anyone who puts something on the matrix that really shouldn't be. it's a heck of a lot safer for the corps, and for people who aren't crazy enough to have their cybereyes broadcasting 24/7 when they are in a profession that can expect to be targeted by malicious hackers.

no cybereyes connected to the matrix 100% of the time, no worry about your cybereyes being hacked. problem solved.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

no cybereyes connected to the matrix 100% of the time, no worry about your cybereyes being hacked. problem solved.

Unfortunately, the rationale for the way that the new Matrix is designed is so you can be hacked (which is counter-intuitive to having a secure matrix). They WANT you to go online so the Hacker has something to actually screw with. If you play the professional, who gives the middle finger to the corps by not putting their stuff onlne, the Hacker gets nothing to hack, and they are a sad panda. Never mind that there are other things that a Hacker can do other than screw with peoples cyberware.

And if you do not put stuff on the matrix, then their design goal has failed. Looks like they failed for any of my characters, as I see absolutely NO benefit to havig stuff online (especially since you do not even have to get online for communications, apparently). *shrug*