IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
mfb
post Apr 1 2005, 08:30 AM
Post #1


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



okay. SR4 says it's going to streamline things, especially Matrix things. let's talk about what it should be, especially from a rules perspective. i've listed my requirements in no particular order below. note that while i've put a lot of thought into these concepts, i've put very little into their execution. this is primarily a list of what needs to change, and only secondarily a list of ways to change it.

Tests
a single roll against a TN with little variance should resolve most actions. a wide array of ridiculously high TNs, which are modified by a ridiculously large number of reductors, is completely ridiculous. personally, i think all decker-hackers should use Channels, a la otaku. at least, the mechanic should be similar: a small number of multi-purpose, very expensive programs.

i also think that the ACIFS should be reduced by at least one. get ride of Slaves completely: this is the realm of rigger-hackers. replace all Slave operations with rigger-hacker actions. i think Index and Files could possibly combined; Access and Control can certainly be combined. jesus, you use Access for one thing: Logon to X! it does not deserve its own stat. either that, or expand Access to include all forms of electronic warfare and cryptography in general (since cracking crypto is basically all Access is anyway). want to listen in on your enemies' comms? Access test. want to gank control of a rigger-hacker's drone network? Access test. you get the idea. a name change would be appropriate: Crypto gets my vote.

even better, give hosts one TN, which is then reduced by a decker's programs. for instance, you could have a rating 10 host. if you're performing an Access action--oops, Crypto action!--and your Crypto program (or whatever) is 5, then your TN is 5.

Hackability
everything on a computer should be hackable, and every computer with a network connection should be hackable. i want to play a Comp Sci major who hacks girls' pocsecs for their numbers, goddammit. i want to be able to gank control of the IC that's attacking me, and send it after the security deckers that just popped in. i want to be able to hack another icon and pervert his actions. this includes cyberdecks, or whatever replaces them: the connection is two-way. i want to hack cyberdecks. i want to be able to hack a computer so completely that i can change the ACIFS ratings, reset my security tally, and delete IC--and i want everything in that last sentence to be hard as hell.

Definitions
i want simple, non-detailed definitions for computer-related statistics. basically, i want to know if ACIFS are hardware, software, or firmware. i want to know how much Mp a Red host has. i want to know how many users an Orange-6 host can handle, and i want to know what happens when you overload it with connections.

Crafting
related to the above, i want to be able to build hosts. i want to be able to pay more for a host that's pocket-sized, or nanowoven into my clothes. i want a server in my goddamn sunglasses.

Similarity
everything needs to use the same damn rules. none of this 100Mp wristtop computer / MPCP-8 cyberdeck / Orange-6/10/12/11/10/11 host crap--everything that can be hacked (see Hackability, above) should use the same stats as everything else that can be hacked.

Security
the entire concept of security sheaves should be reworked. it's interesting, but in the end, it's both limiting. the sheaf system means that computers can't proactively respond to intruders (unless the computer operator can afford IC Constructs, and it's a very reactionary proactivity even then). moreover, the reactivity of computers to intruders is incredibly limited. there's no way to respond intelligently to specific methods of attack.

i think that every host should have a security controller. a single piece of IC (larger/more important systems might have more, but one would be the norm) that handles all security for that host. as hackers gain attention, this controller would spawn countermeasures as required. it should be possible, though difficult, to simply take the controller down in combat, neutralizing all security for as long as it takes the host to rebuild the controller (several minutes for low-end hosts, several rounds for high-end). to keep things simple and streamlined, the mechanics controllers use for spawning countermeasures should be similar to summoning nature spirits.

Countermeasures
countermeasures should do more--and less--than just attack things. after all, hackers appear as glitches in the system. in the real world, it's very rare for guards of any stripe to be given shoot-on-suspicion orders, where anything that moves at all (wind, animals, wandering children) gets an automatic three-round burst. yet that's exactly how IC reacts to everything, in SR.

instead, the first response by the security controller (see above) should be to spawn a countermeasure that raises the TN for the specific action that the controller detected, or which allow the controller to gain more information about any further attempts (a la probe or scout IC).

SIMPLICITY
jesus christ, hacking should be simpler. none of this crap with 500,000 programs that take up 15613.54Mp which you then have to find the square root of in order to discover how much time it takes to get to hell with that. operations should be action-based: write up a definition of what an Index action is, or a File action, or an Access/Crypto action. we don't need four seperate Logon to X actions. we don't need umpteen billion Locate X actions that all use the same goddamn program, subsystem rating, and skill anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 1 2005, 12:01 PM
Post #2


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I disagree with just about everything you say.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 1 2005, 12:22 PM
Post #3


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I suspect Kagetenshi is truly embracing this whole April Fool's thing?

I agree with most things you're saying here, and I completely agree with the basic concept of making things simpler and more uniform. Maybe then I'd finally bother to actually learn the respective rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 1 2005, 12:19 PM
Post #4


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



No, I quite honestly disagree with almost the entirety of what was posted above. I think it varies from a bad idea to downright ridiculous.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 1 2005, 12:45 PM
Post #5


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



You honestly think it's a good idea for the hacking rules to be multiform, fragmented, and as complex as possible?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 1 2005, 12:42 PM
Post #6


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



"As complex as possible"? It's painfully obvious that as you say you haven't bothered to actually learn the rules, as they really aren't that bad. They might get up to the complexity of Ranged Combat.

Regardless, I'd agree that a lot of the duplicate operations need to be combined into one. The only reason why Logon to RTG and Logon to Host would be different tests is because there's an edge that can affect one but not the other, but that edge isn't necessary. There's a lot else that could be done to improve and streamline the rules. However, the issue with the current rules is primarily lack of organization and ease of reference rather than any complexity inherent to them. Just because I think one direction of change is absurd doesn't mean that I'm against all change.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 1 2005, 01:10 PM
Post #7


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



The Decking section in SR3 is longer than the Ranged Combat section, and is just as fully packed with rules which you need to know to run decking properly. Unlike in ranged combat, in SR3 decking you've got 27 actions, nearly all of which come up regularly, the facts and usage of all which you need to know by heart or you'll be going to be referencing the book a lot. You constantly use 19 different utilities for these 27 actions, and again you need to know by heart how these function or your book is going to wear out fast.

AFAIK, the Matrix books make it yet a lot more complex than that, on par with the rigging rules post-R3. And those were a pain in the ass, even after I dedicated a whole week of all-nighters to trying to understand it and apply it into actual vehicle design and combat.

And even if decking in SR3 were as simple as ranged combat (which I disagree with), that'd be too complex. Decking is, in many/most games, something which doesn't happen often and only concerns one player at a time. For it to be integrated easily into the rest of the run, the rules for it need to be simple.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 1 2005, 01:12 PM
Post #8


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Keep in mind that the length of the Decking section is largely due to the descriptions of utilities and operations. That being said, while I don't know what they're doing the fact that they're eliminating cyberdecks and moving a decent chunk of Matrix access wireless suggests that it may not be unreasonable to expect every non-technophobe character to have their hand in the decking pot. More importantly, though, all of those twenty-seven actions are very simple: one number minus another number, both static, and then two rolls (which can occur simultaneously, as the host doesn't need to allocate pool). Until things like traces and stolen passcodes come into play, that's pretty much it.

The potentially complicated part is program size. I'm considering playtesting a bit to see if eliminating program size as a factor is unbalancing; either way, that'd be one area that could potentially be tightened up somehow.

Incidentally, thanks for keeping it civil. I was needlessly harsh above, which I apologize for; it's been a long couple of weeks.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 1 2005, 01:45 PM
Post #9


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



No worries. I think I'm too tired right now to get decently pissed off right now.

I am willing to admit that the basics of the system may not be too complicated for me to comprehend, but that the way the whole thing is layed out in SR3, combined with the limited use I have for the rules, just puts me off and makes trying to learn the rules difficult. Having hacking be more prevalent in SR4 than decking is in SR3 should help, as should the over-all streamlining that is (hopefully) happening.

On another note, the physical combat rules are an apt comparison in that those can do with a lot of revision as well, and a significant part of that has to do with having similar rules for all related actions -- e.g. using the same attack resolution for ranged and melee combat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Apr 1 2005, 01:43 PM
Post #10


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
The potentially complicated part is program size. I'm considering playtesting a bit to see if eliminating program size as a factor is unbalancing; either way, that'd be one area that could potentially be tightened up somehow.

Eh, I gave up with a rather large write-up for a house rule that completely eliminated Memory Size from software in the game and just relied on Rating instead (my logic being that by then, memory shouldn't be a real problem, only processing power). Worked fine for the most part, though I remember there being one minor area that was a problem. I'll see if I can find the document somewhere sometime.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 1 2005, 04:38 PM
Post #11


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



pretty much what austere said, kage. you keep saying that ranged combat is of equal or greater complexity than decking, but that still doesn't make it true. i've laid out the comparison before, but i'll do it again here.

ranged combat
-number of base TNs: 4, plus the power of the weapons involved; and except for those, the base TNs don't change at all.
-number of possible actions: ~21
-types of rolls: 3
-modifiers: 32

decking
-number of base TNs: 25, counting ACIFS as 1 TN each; most of the TNs changed every time you change hosts or meet up with a different opponent.
-number of possible actions: 31, using only SR3, not counting program-specific actions such as Medic
-types of rolls: 9, i think, possibly more
-modifiers: 14, most of which must be matched up to specific action types

while decking has fewer modifiers, it's worth pointing out that matching up the modifier to the TN is more complex than it is with ranged combat--that is, in ranged combat, you just pick what modifiers apply and add them up, rather than having to cross-index the modifier to your desired action. decking also has nearly as many base TNs as ranged combat does modifiers. decking has only a few more possible actions, but those actions are severely limited, depending on what programs you've bought. in ranged combat, the question of whether or not you've got the right program loaded (in addition to all the other factors) never comes up, as it does all the time in decking.

decking is not, by any possible definition of the word, easier than ranged combat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 1 2005, 04:57 PM
Post #12


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I disagree, but I need to go drive someone to the airport. More this evening.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Apr 1 2005, 05:06 PM
Post #13


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



QUOTE (mfb)
Tests
a single roll against a TN with little variance should resolve most actions. a wide array of ridiculously high TNs, which are modified by a ridiculously large number of reductors, is completely ridiculous. personally, i think all decker-hackers should use Channels, a la otaku. at least, the mechanic should be similar: a small number of multi-purpose, very expensive programs.

I'll add to this: less rolling. A hacker should be able to spoof a system and perform all basic operations with a single roll. Only when altering, authenticating, or otherwise performing secure operations should it require more tests. The security host could then respond to directly threats, and eliminate the security tally system as it stands.

QUOTE
even better, give hosts one TN, which is then reduced by a decker's programs. for instance, you could have a rating 10 host. if you're performing an Access action--oops, Crypto action!--and your Crypto program (or whatever) is 5, then your TN is 5.

Ugh, while I agree that the security system could have simply one rating, I think the program ratings should be the systems TN (like weapon power) and not reduce the hacker's TNs - that is simply one of the biggest hindrances to simple play. It's not that decking is complex on its own - it's that it doesn't behave like any other part of the system.

QUOTE
Hackability 
everything on a computer should be hackable, and every computer with a network connection should be hackable. i want to play a Comp Sci major who hacks girls' pocsecs for their numbers, goddammit.  i want to be able to gank control of the IC that's attacking me, and send it after the security deckers that just popped in. i want to be able to hack another icon and pervert his actions. this includes cyberdecks, or whatever replaces them: the connection is two-way. i want to hack cyberdecks. i want to be able to hack a computer so completely that i can change the ACIFS ratings, reset my security tally, and delete IC--and i want everything in that last sentence to be hard as hell.

It's at least implied that this can be done currently, but the hows are more or less open.

QUOTE
Definitions 
i want simple, non-detailed definitions for computer-related statistics. basically, i want to know if ACIFS are hardware, software, or firmware. i want to know how much Mp a Red host has. i want to know how many users an Orange-6 host can handle, and i want to know what happens when you overload it with connections.

I won't expect this in the core book, but I can agree it is nice ideas. Getting rid of Mp is an interesting idea, but knowsofts and headware would need some restraints.

QUOTE
Crafting 
related to the above, i want to be able to build hosts. i want to be able to pay more for a host that's pocket-sized, or nanowoven into my clothes. i want a server in my goddamn sunglasses. 
 
Similarity 
everything needs to use the same damn rules. none of this 100Mp wristtop computer / MPCP-8 cyberdeck / Orange-6/10/12/11/10/11 host crap--everything that can be hacked (see Hackability, above) should use the same stats as everything else that can be hacked.

I 100% agree with similarity, and think that would make Crafting almost a simple affair. Again, not something I expect in the core book - however, one could use the "increase concealability" rules to accommodate the sunglasses and clothing.

QUOTE
i think that every host should have a security controller. a single piece of IC (larger/more important systems might have more, but one would be the norm) that handles all security for that host. as hackers gain attention, this controller would spawn countermeasures as required. it should be possible, though difficult, to simply take the controller down in combat, neutralizing all security for as long as it takes the host to rebuild the controller (several minutes for low-end hosts, several rounds for high-end). to keep things simple and streamlined, the mechanics controllers use for spawning countermeasures should be similar to summoning nature spirits.

This ties into the single TN we mentioned above. I think, however, that the "Security Comptroller" should be integral to the hOSt.

QUOTE
SIMPLICITY 
jesus christ, hacking should be simpler. none of this crap with 500,000 programs that take up 15613.54Mp which you then have to find the square root of in order to discover how much time it takes to get to hell with that. operations should be action-based: write up a definition of what an Index action is, or a File action, or an Access/Crypto action. we don't need four seperate Logon to X actions. we don't need umpteen billion Locate X actions that all use the same goddamn program, subsystem rating, and skill anyway.

Well, what I want is for most programs to act like spells, and other to act like spirits. They shouldn't be required to hack, only make it simple and allow for increased functionality. For instance, most hackers would run an Invisibility program to make it harder for the hOSt to detect them and so on. Make them work like the rest of the system: most weapons, spells, programs, and should work the similar; as should drones, agents, virtual computers, and spirits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 1 2005, 05:15 PM
Post #14


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



can we take it to a thread in the regular SR section? two reasons: one, it's an argument that's more about SR3 than SR4; two, no offense, but you're the only guy in the entire world that holds this opinion, and i want this thread to focus on my crazy ideas.

QUOTE (K10)
I think the program ratings should be the systems TN (like weapon power) and not reduce the hacker's TNs - that is simply one of the biggest hindrances to simple play.

huh. never thought of that. way better than my idea.

let me reword your progs-as-spells idea: programs should be effect-based, not action-based. as it stands, there's a program for every action you could possibly take. instead, you should be able to use programs to achieve certain effects, which aid your actions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MYST1C
post Apr 1 2005, 08:45 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 25-August 03
From: Braunschweig, North German League, Allied German States
Member No.: 5,537



QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
my logic being that by then, memory shouldn't be a real problem, only processing power

Reminds me of GURPS Cyberpunk where it is assumed that computer storage capacity would simply be enough considering the average cyberpunk world tech level.
The maximum rating of programs and the number of programs running simultaneously on a computer is determined by only one stat: Complexity.
Comparing the complexity rating of a program and a computer will determine if the program runs on the machine and how many other programs (and of which ratings) can work simultaneously.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MYST1C
post Apr 1 2005, 08:53 PM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 858
Joined: 25-August 03
From: Braunschweig, North German League, Allied German States
Member No.: 5,537



QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
Getting rid of Mp is an interesting idea, but knowsofts and headware would need some restraints. 

Simply define a maximum rating.

In Cyberpunk 2020 skillchips are limited to rating 3 while natural skills can go up to 10 (plus, not all skills can be chipped).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 1 2005, 09:50 PM
Post #17


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



that could work. you could have knowsoft links that cost, say, 0.01 Essence per level; skillwire sets would simply have a Total Rating and Max Rating stats. i don't think it's necessary to get rid of Mp, personally, but it's a viable way to streamline things and i wouldn't be heartbroken to see them go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 1 2005, 09:48 PM
Post #18


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



But then we wouldn't have any more threads about how many bytes is one pulse. :(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deamon_Knight
post Apr 2 2005, 12:46 AM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 256
Joined: 24-October 04
Member No.: 6,784



I think that Making "hacking" like spells/spirits would remove alot of the personality of the game. Having mages and tech-mages that are the same, but for the medium they operate in takes alot away from the game.

Also, will multiple hackers on one host be addressed? Its seems like hacker gangs would make sense, but the rules in SR3 for multiple deckers on one host, well... just don't exist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Apr 2 2005, 01:36 AM
Post #20


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



oh, they exist. they're just a horrifying, tentacled mass.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 2 2005, 03:08 AM
Post #21


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (mfb)
can we take it to a thread in the regular SR section? two reasons: one, it's an argument that's more about SR3 than SR4; two, no offense, but you're the only guy in the entire world that holds this opinion, and i want this thread to focus on my crazy ideas.

Sure thing. I'll be right in to bicker with you as soon as I finish tai chi ;)

To address another of my problems with your idea, though, is the "everything should be hackable" idea; there's no good reason why my Smartlink should run on a general-purpose TCP stack equivalent, or for that matter why my cellphone should need one. Moreover, if things are that insecure, it's even more evidence that the tech shouldn't exist on the streets in the first place.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Apr 2 2005, 03:09 AM
Post #22


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



Cellphones are hackable. They may require a different protocal or whatever, but they can hack the mobile speed pass and pretty much anything else that operates in a network.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 2 2005, 03:18 AM
Post #23


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Define "hackable"? The mobile speed pass most certainly does not operate on a network; last I checked, it's simple RFID.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Apr 2 2005, 03:22 AM
Post #24


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



They broke the encryption code. And the speed pass is part of a network, a key to it even - in my abstract opinion.

I guess by hacking, I mean reprogrammable or subvertible.

This post has been edited by Kanada Ten: Apr 2 2005, 03:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 2 2005, 03:33 AM
Post #25


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,012
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



No, the speed pass doesn't connect to a network. It's not part of a network any more than the key to my house is part of my house. Moreover, it isn't applicable because RFID is designed for the sole purpose of giving information to anything that asks. It's pure cryptography, nothing more.

Unless someone leaves Bluetooth-equivalent on all the time, there should be no interface to the phone by which it will pass out information.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2025 - 05:57 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.