 Decking, the SR3R way |
  |
 Apr 22 2005, 06:48 PM
Post
#101
|
|
|
Mr. Johnson  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014  |
Keep the active memory and canon program sizes. I don't see any benefit that is great enough to warrant the cost of reworking a bunch of rules simply for the sake of reworking program sizes.
|
 |
 
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 06:54 PM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
What about the fact that we have less than half the original number of programs? Do we up their sizes somehow, or leave well enough alone?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 08:10 PM
Post
#103
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
Leave well enough alone, I think. Remember, most of that added bulk came from "Matrix", and they didn't adjust Active Memory to compensate. ATM, all cyberdecks above a Novatech-6 need memory upgrades to have a decent spread of programs up to the max rating. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 22 2005, 08:20 PM
Post
#104
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Any other opinions?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 08:26 PM
Post
#105
|
|
|
Knight Templar Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 212 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Ipswich, UK Just South of the Stinkfens Member No.: 6,424 |
I agree with hahnsoo, keep programme sizes and active memory as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 09:38 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
My 2 :nuyen: is to keep it the way it is
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 10:53 PM
Post
#107
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That was my preference too. Unless a better argument comes up somewhere, it is so.
More soon. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2005, 06:04 PM
Post
#108
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I was going to do a recap today, but stuff came up and I'm on a deadline, so I'll toss out a few more issues and do the recap tomorrow.
Does anyone think anything needs to be changed with Compressor? I've never seen it used, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily broken… 9) Maneuvers Beneficial? Overly complicated? Rarely useful? What needs to be changed about these? ~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 29 2005, 09:38 PM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Sorry for dragging this back out of the tar pit it's seems to be in.
Compressor, though i think something like this should exsist i think the Data Compactor cyberware fills that roll very well. if someone is wanting to "Zip" thier files then just allow a none Cyberware piece of hardware. I don't think it is in the realm of Utilities, anymore then OS's are. they exsist oh yeah, but how many Deckers characters you see with an OS listed in their Active memory?? Maneuvers. Evade Detection is the one i've seen as the most used, so i wouldn't like that to go. Parry Attack is almost as common as Evade Detection so again would be good to keep it. However if we did keep it then we would need to either keep Postion Attack, or change it to 1 per 2 Success's. Because Postion Attack can come back and bite you, i tend to find that it's not used all that much unless against things they know they can win against, which in that case they proberly don't need it. This post has been edited by Shockwave_IIc: Apr 30 2005, 04:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 29 2005, 10:35 PM
Post
#110
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Bah, no apologies needed. I needed a swift kick in the arse about it anyway (and a break from coding!).
I'm going to draw up that long-overdue perspective of our current changes. Are there any other concerns directly relevant to non-cybercombat decking (leaving aside jackpoints, for the moment)? Oh yes, that's a big one. 10) Multiple Deckers What the Sam Hill do we do with these? Possible solutions: Everyone gets their own security tally no matter what. This raises the question: will there be multiple copies of IC? How would we treat system alerts? Can deckers find and combat IC that they have not triggered? If so, isn't that somewhat broken? If not, why not? Security tally is a property of the host. This raises the question of whether we continue passing tally to hosts people go to and, if we don't, how we balance that newfound versatility. Possibly including a "security linked" flag that cause certain hosts to have their security value shared with other specific hosts? ~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2005, 04:47 PM
Post
#111
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Did we touch on programming and the Languages?
I'm inclined to go with this option as a Host should easy have enough processing power to bring up multiple copys. But it's only "fair" that you can (try to) see other Deckers triggered IC and help deal with them. But it does make a little too easy on the Deckers. But appart from making IC tougher which i think is a bad idea. what can we do? I also like the idea that the host has one Alert Value, and everyone suffers cos of it. but then you would need a rule to trigger multiple copys of IC. Perhaps something like a Opposed Security value/ Detection factor, with a Host win sending out a copy of that trigger value to deal with you? Dunno just ideas |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 30 2005, 05:02 PM
Post
#112
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
My problem with multiple copies is as follows: if the host can run multiple copies, why doesn't it run those multiple copies against the first detected intruder?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2005, 05:35 PM
Post
#113
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Overkill?? :silly:
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2005, 05:57 PM
Post
#114
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
Programming rules can pretty much stay as they are. I don't like the Design Test necessary for a Program Plan (it effectively doubles the amount of rolls and table lookups you have to make), but that step can be conveniently ignored or used as an optional rule. The Programming Languages are definitely in the realm of optional rules (I think they are even stated that way in Matrix), as they deal with Bugs in Decker programming. People should be free to use them if they want to deal with handling the Bug rules as an added complication. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 30 2005, 06:09 PM
Post
#115
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
What I'm trying to do now is get these rules to a point where we can playtest a no-connection, no-cybercombat decking run. After that I'll be bringing cybercombat into the mix (I've already opened some of the issues, but the direction is a lot more muddied there). After we've got rules that work, make sense, are balanced, and are easy to learn and use, then we'll get to the add-ons to those rules.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2005, 07:18 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,088 Joined: 8-October 04 From: Dallas, TX Member No.: 6,734 |
When things start getting more finalized, will the playtest rules be posted in it's entirety somewhere? If so, where?
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2005, 07:57 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'll be posting interim rules collections in each individual thread as well as summaries in the main thread. I may as we progress either create another thread solely for final rulesets or toss up some pages on SotSW for the purpose.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 30 2005, 09:04 PM
Post
#118
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
This is a good point. It's not like the host itself has some sort of "Game Balance" state variable telling it not to throw lots of effort against a known intrusion or something. I think the "best" solution here is to just ditch independent tallies altogether, and make the number a general Anamoly Awareness number--basically global security tally representing how many times the host has "suspected" that something's up. It's a global number, so any decker that ups the tally has it apply to everyone. IC that's triggered only has one instance triggered at a time, so a group of deckers can double-team a set of IC if so desired, keeping in mind things will be balanced by the tally jumping up roughly twice as fast and thus getting to lethal levels/Active alerts sooner. Having a single number makes it easier to track. Also it's exactly the same with only one decker. With multiple deckers you get one of two effects: 1) The two deckers are sharing information (via Comlink?), effectively acting as one decker acting twice as fast. In general this will help you: though usually you'll be triggering the same amount of IC you now have two people to deal with it. Generally this is fine: teamwork should have a benefit. 2) THe two deckers are not sharing, either because they don't know each other or they're enemies. Anomoly Awareness (Security Tally) will jump up much faster as both deckers Analyze the system seperately, Browse the system seperately, etc. IC will trigger left and right, each one flipping a coin (basically; really they'd be making Sensor tests opposing Evasion or whatever it is you use to notice deckers) to see which decker the IC "finds" first. In the end each decker will find about the same amount of IC as they would alone, though the spread will be much more lethal and the Passive/Active alerts will trigger more quickly. Again, this seems to make sense to me. Of course Anomoly Awareness will go back down the same way Sec Tally goes down now, and you get fewer weird rules related to Sec Tally applying differently to different people. What do you think? Too much of a departure? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 30 2005, 09:20 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Oh, that reminds me: cyberterminal construction rules have to change. Currently it's cheaper to, for instance, both buy an MPCP and pay to have it installed than it is to just buy the MPCP chip by itself and install it on your own; about one-tenth the cost, in fact. This of course makes no sense whatsoever. Upgrading memory and installing certain types of easy hardware are fairly easy (though it really shouldn't take several hours to slot a Storage Memory OMC into your deck, but whatever), so that part's fine, but most of the actually interesting things are pretty ridiculous in terms of either cost or time involved, unless you purchase it pre-installed when it magically becomes a small fraction of the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
May 1 2005, 04:37 AM
Post
#120
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
@ Eyeless, i like what you've said about the tally, the only thing conserning me is being the decker with the crap ratings and being the one the IC ALWAYS goes for. Hence why i was thinking the same test versus everyone because the slightly more sneaker one would get at least some ice for himself instead of the poor weeflerunner being the only one getting any of it.
|
|
|
|
|
May 1 2005, 04:56 AM
Post
#121
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Yeah, I kinda mentioned that. It'd the same test that the IC normally uses, against whatever TN that you're supposed to have. The IC makes the same test against every decker, and goes after the one he can find the easiest (eg gets the most successes against).
|
|
|
|
|
May 1 2005, 09:54 AM
Post
#122
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
This sort of thing has been suggested many times in the past. The question that's come up each time is how to handle the following situation:
Is the VP doing something he shouldn't? Yes, but just because he happened to be doing it while the system was still on point from a separate security threat, he gets a response disproportionate to the crime. In the past, attempts to implement global tallies have had to closely examine settings assumptions:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 1 2005, 01:12 PM
Post
#123
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
A fact that is still true today. Take a look at the current rules for security tallies; whenever a previous user jacks out the sec tally for any new user starts at the level of the highest one that left. This prevents deckers from logging out and logging back in one round later to reset their tally, but it also does exactly what you describe. Making tally global doesn't change this problem, as it's one that already exists. Besides, I don't think it's really a problem. Ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances. :)
I'd say the first three or four script kiddies that get their asses fried/get traced and get their doors kicked in by a HRT squad at their parents' expense will drive this practise underground a little more, to the otaku tribes and the truly "l33t" who can get around them because they're just better.
Well, first off keep in mind that hot ASIST--the only kind of ASIST where IC has actually lethal or permenant effects--is also described as being hyper-realistic, an insane gambit where you're red-lining the interface to squeeze a little more performance out of your wetware. No casual user would ever bother exposing themselves unless the risk was worth the gain; doing a little innocent after-hours snooping usually isn't worth it unless you're drek-hot. Further, hot ASIST is already illegal without a permit, so having it on means you're probably breaking the law already. Just like when you're breaking into someone's home and the owner shoots you in the face responding lethally to an illegal trespassing attempt is not in itself illegal; you're just protecting yourself. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 1 2005, 01:24 PM
Post
#124
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
Umm, the guys a freaking VP (even if its of a different division) you would think the guy would have legit, legal access from his terminal, even if he is snooping deeper than he should be, IMO he would still be safe. I know it says in matrix, that even on highest alerts, legal users of the systems generally won't even know something's going on...
|
|
|
|
|
May 1 2005, 01:40 PM
Post
#125
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well, the assumption was that he's doing something illegal, that he doesn't *have* permission to do. And honestly you'd be surprised how little access the average VP has to the system; most are surprisingly at the mercy of the IT department, either through ignorance, lack of explicit access, or oftentimes both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th April 2024 - 03:08 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.