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

[Samoth]

Something I can't find: Do Commlinks have Firewall equal to their Device Rating?

[Werewindlefr]

Something I can't find: Do Commlinks have Firewall equal to their Device Rating?

Yes, they're devices, and all devices but cyberdecks and RCCs do.

[quentra]

My proposal for the TacNet isn't a straight bonus to dice, it's a shared dicepool that adds a layer of team-based resource management. I'm also thinking of making the maximum dice withdrawal 2 for character with an external TacNet client (so, someone with an external commlink) and 3 for an internal one (a TacNet client running on an implanted commlink), to give an extra bonus to cyberware-oriented sammies.

I don't link bricking either, but I do think more vulnerability than just "severing connection to the TacNet" is a good thing - so I could add this: if a hacker gets marks on the TacNet or on a device, he can use a "Control Device" action to lower the limit for any action involving that device by 2. So for instance, hacking cybereyes this way would lower the limit for perception and shooting rolls by 2.

I suppose my issue with the shared combat pool is the word combat pool, which brings back horrid memories of SR3. So I may be a bit biased, but that seems workable. It'd give a reason to have implanted commlinks again, but I'm curious about why you only chose 2 or 3 dice. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just interested in the reasoning.

For the second point, that seems workable, but how many actions should it take for the hacker to get through? If it takes more than a turn or two, then it doesn't matter as the sammie should've ghosted the opposition by then. Do you picture it working like this?

Samurai Joe and Billy the Decker are pinned down at an Evo warehouse, hiding behind a few steel-sided crates. Four corpsec is facing them at other end of the warehouse, one of which is behind good cover and pressing suppressive fire down at the path between them and the exit. The other three are only under partial cover, so samurai Joe pops up and caps one of the partially covered corpsec after aiming (2 single actions) while Billy the Decker uses (complex action) brute force to place a mark on the corpsec's tacnet. Corpsec fire, miss, or whatever, and Samurai Joe responds by capping another one of the corpsec. Then Billy the Decker uses his next complex action (assuming 2 passes) to make the suppressive fire guy have a lower limit, therefore capping his next suppressive fire hits to something manageable. The remaining corpsec try to flee, Samurai Joe caps another one of them, and the turn ends.

(Presuming, of course, that Samurai Joe is good enough to ghost a corpsec with every pass, of course - still, there's no reason to think he shouldn't be, but I feel if the sam can waste the opposition at a good rate, the decker needs to have actions comparable to that, at combat speeds.)

[Wired_SR_AEGIS]

I suppose my issue with the shared combat pool is the word combat pool, which brings back horrid memories of SR3.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Combat Pool was awesome!

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

[quentra]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Combat Pool was awesome!

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

It broke immersion and prevented me from doing awesome shit. As I play the game for immersion and doing awesome shit, I'll have to disagree (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Werewindlefr]

I estimated the max bonus at 2/3 dice because:
-It has to be big enough to make a change and make limits relevant.
-It has to be bigger than the contribution of a single device to the dicepool (so that it doesn't feel like you're just getting a self-contained "+1" when attaching a device)
-It is big enough that it will deplete fast, encouraging the subscription of many devices.


As for the vulnerability, getting 2 marks on the TacNet server will be 1 to 2 complex actions, getting 3 marks 1 to 3 actions, and the action to send bogus data/commands (like, making the cybereyes picture distorted) is going to be complex or simple, depending.
So between 1 and 3 actions to access the central node, and 1 actions thereafter for each device you want to mess up.

[cryptoknight]

I still like the DP as the thing that the Tacnet is represented by in the mechanics of how the system works.

but what about Hackers stealing and coopting the opposing tacnet to literally steal dice from the pool of the opposition?

i.e. fluff wise you perform a Man-in-the-middle attack on the link of your opposition sam's cybereyes and divert his data stream into your tacnet letting you suddenly see where 3 of his team are (you take 4 dice from their pool), you pass along his signal to his team so he doesn't know you've tapped him, but the stolen dice that are now in your team's pool are also a representation of the fact that the data coming from his cybereyes is slowed down or something.

[Werewindlefr]

I still like the DP as the thing that the Tacnet is represented by in the mechanics of how the system works.

but what about Hackers stealing and coopting the opposing tacnet to literally steal dice from the pool of the opposition?

i.e. fluff wise you perform a Man-in-the-middle attack on the link of your opposition sam's cybereyes and divert his data stream into your tacnet letting you suddenly see where 3 of his team are (you take 4 dice from their pool), you pass along his signal to his team so he doesn't know you've tapped him, but the stolen dice that are now in your team's pool are also a representation of the fact that the data coming from his cybereyes is slowed down or something.

That's... a very interesting idea. I like it.

[quentra]

I estimated the max bonus at 2/3 dice because:
-It has to be big enough to make a change and make limits relevant.
-It has to be bigger than the contribution of a single device to the dicepool (so that it doesn't feel like you're just getting a self-contained "+1" when attaching a device)
-It is big enough that it will deplete fast, encouraging the subscription of many devices.


As for the vulnerability, getting 2 marks on the TacNet server will be 1 to 2 complex actions, getting 3 marks 1 to 3 actions, and the action to send bogus data/commands (like, making the cybereyes picture distorted) is going to be complex or simple, depending.
So between 1 and 3 actions to access the central node, and 1 actions thereafter for each device you want to mess up.

But getting a mark on a device is a single complex Brute Force or Hacking on the Fly action. Are you going to houserule you need a new matrix action, or specify that you need 2 marks minimum on the tacnet server in order to do other shit? What are you going to make the tacnet server as well? Per SR5 RAW, there are only six types of icons - device, persona, file, pan, grid, and host. Is the tacnet going to be a pan or a wan?

So say you get 2 marks on a tacnet server (let's say it's a WAN or some shit, I need to reread the pan/wan descriptions to see if that's even viable), that's probably 2 complex actions, ie, two passes. That's probably what you'll have a decker, maybe a 3rd pass. So in a turn, all you've managed is just getting those 2 marks, and maybe a single spoof command. Still feels too long to me, where the sam has already ghosted most of the opposition.

I feel that the decker should have, for lack of a better term, AoE effects to compensate for the slow speed of his work. So he takes a while to get marks on whatever, but he can affect a large group once he does.

[Werewindlefr]

A mark (or 2 or three if you're willing to take risks) is a single complex action, but "Control Device" is also a simple or complex action, requiring 2 (simple action) or 3 (complex action) marks.

And the TacNet server is someone's commlink, set in master. The TacNet clients are other commlinks, set to slave.

[quentra]

A mark (or 2 or three if you're willing to take risks) is a single complex action, but "Control Device" is also a simple or complex action, requiring 2 (simple action) or 3 (complex action) marks.

And the TacNet server is someone's commlink, set in master. The TacNet clients are other commlinks, set to slave.

I haven't taken too hard of a close look at the slaving rules for 5, but wouldn't it make it better to hack the commlink directly rather than futzing around with the tacnet, if that setup is used?

[Werewindlefr]

I haven't taken too hard of a close look at the slaving rules for 5, but wouldn't it make it better to hack the commlink directly rather than futzing around with the tacnet, if that setup is used?

That's what I meant by "hacking the TacNet". It's just that since I don't like the rules for bricking, I was suggesting other possibilities for consequences when someone had access to your slaved devices.

[quentra]

Ah, I see. I thought you meant the tacnet as a separate thing, rather than shorthand for benefits you get by being slaved to a decker (or whatever).

[Werewindlefr]

Ah, I see. I thought you meant the tacnet as a separate thing, rather than shorthand for benefits you get by being slaved to a decker (or whatever).

I actually see it as software or commlink add-on that requires a connection between at least two characters (each having the software installed)

[quentra]

That still raises the issue of why go after the tacnet software or add-on when you can hack the master and slaves directly, though.

[Werewindlefr]

That still raises the issue of why go after the tacnet software or add-on when you can hack the master and slaves directly, though.

You don't, but it gives a good excuse for the commlinks to be on wireless-mode in the first place. Also gives a good excuse for slaving gear instead of putting it "offline".

[Wired_SR_AEGIS]

It broke immersion and prevented me from doing awesome shit. As I play the game for immersion and doing awesome shit, I'll have to disagree (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I always liked how it prevented someone from dodging an infinite number of shots fired against them by bad marksmen. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Must be all the realism I prefer out of a game... with... elves and... drag--erm, nevermind.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

[quentra]

I always liked how it prevented someone from dodging an infinite number of shots fired against them by bad marksmen. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Must be all the realism I prefer out of a game... with... elves and... drag--erm, nevermind.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

^_^

[Shadow Knight]

This sounds good... then hacking the tacnet is more about severing connections to it rather than bricking devices (which I abhor). The hacker disconnects your cybereyes from it reducing the pool by 4. The player Hacker tries to reconnect but the enemy hacker is throwing up White Noise or other interference, then they can duke it out.

Your eyes don't connect. You commlink does. Your eyes are shared through that. You basically hack to isolate people from the tacnet.

[Shadow Knight]

I suppose my issue with the shared combat pool is the word combat pool, which brings back horrid memories of SR3. So I may be a bit biased, but that seems workable. It'd give a reason to have implanted commlinks again, but I'm curious about why you only chose 2 or 3 dice. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just interested in the reasoning.

For the second point, that seems workable, but how many actions should it take for the hacker to get through? If it takes more than a turn or two, then it doesn't matter as the sammie should've ghosted the opposition by then. Do you picture it working like this?

Samurai Joe and Billy the Decker are pinned down at an Evo warehouse, hiding behind a few steel-sided crates. Four corpsec is facing them at other end of the warehouse, one of which is behind good cover and pressing suppressive fire down at the path between them and the exit. The other three are only under partial cover, so samurai Joe pops up and caps one of the partially covered corpsec after aiming (2 single actions) while Billy the Decker uses (complex action) brute force to place a mark on the corpsec's tacnet. Corpsec fire, miss, or whatever, and Samurai Joe responds by capping another one of the corpsec. Then Billy the Decker uses his next complex action (assuming 2 passes) to make the suppressive fire guy have a lower limit, therefore capping his next suppressive fire hits to something manageable. The remaining corpsec try to flee, Samurai Joe caps another one of them, and the turn ends.

(Presuming, of course, that Samurai Joe is good enough to ghost a corpsec with every pass, of course - still, there's no reason to think he shouldn't be, but I feel if the sam can waste the opposition at a good rate, the decker needs to have actions comparable to that, at combat speeds.)

I wouldn't call it a combat pool. i would call it a tacnet pool. It should be able to be used for combat rolls. But also perception rolls, leadership rolls and tactics rolls of various types.

Hacking a tacnet could lower limits. But you could also steal dice for your own tacnet pool. (simulating stealing the intel your tacnet has to give you an advantage) Also perhaps a tacnet will allow a decker to do teamwork on certain skills rolls like perception. Don't the teamwork rules allow limits and dice to be added to your roll?

I see as I was catching up some of my ideas were already thought of (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[cryptoknight]

Your eyes don't connect. You commlink does. Your eyes are shared through that. You basically hack to isolate people from the tacnet.

You put your eyes online and slave them to the team hacker's cyberdeck running the team's tacnet. That's a link to the Cyberdeck as a slaved device.

The hackers are taking those devices and slaving them to their cyberdeck and creating some alternate feed to the other team's tacnet.

[Shadow Knight]

You put your eyes online and slave them to the team hacker's cyberdeck running the team's tacnet. That's a link to the Cyberdeck as a slaved device.

The hackers are taking those devices and slaving them to their cyberdeck and creating some alternate feed to the other team's tacnet.

No. I do not want eyes having wireless connections of their own. They don't need one and should not have one. They need to go through a data jack or some other connection.

[Jaid]

No. I do not want eyes having wireless connections of their own. They don't need one and should not have one. They need to go through a data jack or some other connection.

in SR5, it doesn't really matter even a tiny bit how things are connected. all that matters is that they are. if it's connected, no matter how many things it is going through first, it is vulnerable.

and actually, having eyes *capable* of wireless makes a heck of a lot of sense, given that they are cameras as well. you can use them to film your family vacation and then take that from your eyes, and put it wherever else you feel like. if we're talking about some special super-amazing military-only laz0r eyes that can also serve as hand grenades in a dire emergency, then yeah... those shouldn't be wireless. but given you're just buying the commercial model (and then installing vision mods in it), wireless legitimately makes a lot of sense.

[Werewindlefr]

No. I do not want eyes having wireless connections of their own. They don't need one and should not have one. They need to go through a data jack or some other connection.

First, whether or not they use a wireless connection is up to the user. If someone wants to register cybereyes but has no datajack or implanted commlink, then wireless is pretty much the only solution.
Second, since they have a connection to the TacNet (even indirectly), they're hackable through the TacNet anyway, even if the connection is wired. The TacNet needs to be wireless because it needs 2 characters.

[Epicedion]

in SR5, it doesn't really matter even a tiny bit how things are connected. all that matters is that they are. if it's connected, no matter how many things it is going through first, it is vulnerable.

and actually, having eyes *capable* of wireless makes a heck of a lot of sense, given that they are cameras as well. you can use them to film your family vacation and then take that from your eyes, and put it wherever else you feel like. if we're talking about some special super-amazing military-only laz0r eyes that can also serve as hand grenades in a dire emergency, then yeah... those shouldn't be wireless. but given you're just buying the commercial model (and then installing vision mods in it), wireless legitimately makes a lot of sense.

Presumably you could wire your eyes out your datajack directly to a datachip without ever turning on any wireless, but you wouldn't be able to transmit that information to other people very quickly. Also you'd have a datachip hanging off the side of your head.