IPB
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

14 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Decking, the SR3R way
Sir_Psycho
post Jan 15 2007, 02:12 PM
Post #226


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,629
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 10,361



Oh, I was meaning to ask, being unfamiliar with all the Matrix Operations. Are any of those listed from the Matrix sourcebook?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Jan 15 2007, 02:30 PM
Post #227


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Yes. In general, the work of SR3R takes into account all of the core SR3 books (SR3, Matrix, Man and Machine, Cannon Companion, SRComp, Magic in the Shadows, Rigger 3 Revised, I don't think I missed any did I?), and tries to take into account all SR3 books except Shadows of Europe, Shadows of Asia, SotA:2064, and Mr. Johnson's Little Black Book (I think that's it). At this time, we are not involved in any specific effort to make a version of SR3R playable with just the core book, though it's entirely probable that some improvement may be made to the core book by the application of those rules that are relevant to it.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 29 2007, 06:30 PM
Post #228


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



Alright, I've finished compiling this thread. My notes are as such:

Agreed upon rules largely posted elsewhere:
[ Spoiler ]


Issues without suggested rules:
1. Hacking pool should have more basis on skill or attributes
2. Multiple systems for deckers, one quicker for interaction with non-decking PCs, one more expansive, both equivalent except for speed and detail
3. Determine if programming tools is too easy
4. Deck construction rules need to be reworked


Suggested rules:
A) Drop response increase in favor of mental-initiative boosting cyber (like a VCR)
1. Should be capped by deck
X (Has this suggestion been retracted or voted down?)
B) Redirect Datatrail success adds +1 to the Location cycle (making it take longer, not harder)
C) IC are just frame agents loaded with appropriate programs
1. All IC get the features of Probe IC (adding to the value of System Tests)
D) Persona attributes can be redistributed with a complex action while in the system
1. Optional rule: you can go above the MPCP limit by paying 2 MPCP pts per attribute point
E) Drop memory requirements (like SR4)
F) Agent rules are kinder, allowing a decker to have multiple agents. Drones are agents with bodies (SR4)
G) AR allows for people to do simple things without physically disengaging from the real world (SR4)
H) Drones and matrix simsense feeds are identical, allowing deckers to give orders to drones and CCSS rules (SR4)
I) All electronic devices (including cyber) can be connected to the matrix and thereby hacked (SR4)
1. ACIFS of 2*rating for all areas
J) Everyone should be able to use AR and therefore the matrix, making the computer skill much more common


I would add the following three:
K) IC should have to spend time searching rather than immediately appear next to the decker after the tally has increased
L) The decker should be able to directly deceive the IC, not JUST the host
M) A legitimate user who commits an illegal operation may be dumped with no tests
N) Prices should be included for non-illegal decks in the main manual

K, L and M are based on the paradigm of decking. The host does not know where the decker is, or which user is causing these violations. In theory, the system SHOULD be keeping track of all legitimate users. The problem is the decker is a ghost in the system, hence the reason why he isn't mobbed when he gets a tally of 1. Because legitimate users ARE tracked, they're dumped. The V-P who is peeking at a file he shouldn't after a script-kiddy has run up the security tally will be disconnected and his violation (possibly) logged. If the V-P goes home and connects using an illegal deck by abusing a security hole in the login script in violation of corporate policy, he may be dealt with like a common criminal as he now is.

On the flip side, the decker who is bopping around is impossible to directly trace. As the security tally goes up, the host begins dispensing extra IC, multiple copies of IC likely (one per area) to search for the decker. IC will query any icon in the area to determine if it's a legitimate user or system icon (in which case it's left alone) or anomalous, in which case it's dealt with however the IC deals with things (attacking it, in short). The decker then has a chance to evade pursuit (which is difficult, since you can't really hide), respond to the IC's query, then to defend himself.

This also meshes better with the question of stationary IC. It's not uncommon to have a room or node full of stationary IC to serve as a chokehold. Currently, as the decker wanders through, he is completely safe from this IC (assuming it's not a tar baby/pit) assuming the system doesn't do anything that bumps up his tally, in which case he just has the IC that's in the room with him attack with better speed (since they're already there). Having a rating 9 black IC guarding an access point to a particular server does nothing beyond that. It can't double check that users are valid or attack people on sight. It sits there until the user's tally goes up, THEN does something scary. Seems broken to me.

With my suggestion, when the decker comes into sight, the IC continues to query him and verify he's a valid icon. If he fails the query, the IC "sounds the alarm" by attacking and then crashing the decker or adding to his tally (in theory). It makes IC into a useful sentry.

This also helps us deal with the question of why the user isn't mobbed when something goes wrong. The answer is there are multiple versions of the same IC, but they're spread out since they need to find him first. If he jumps around too much and has a tally of 5, he will accumulate multiple probe IC, even if he never bumps up the tally again. The mob of deckers is no more dangerous than a squad of runners, however the lone decker can still survive a host made to deal with a mob of deckers by just being sneaky.


Thoughts? Comments?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Jan 29 2007, 06:52 PM
Post #229


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



To again vote on my own notes...

A) (Response increase due to cyber)

Yes, sounds cool and helps differentiate between real deckers and people with the computer skill

B) (Redirect Datatrail makes tracking longer, not harder)

Sure

C) (IC are frame agents)

Yes, some should be. It's simpler and allows for a good deal of customization relatively easily. I don't know that purely reactive IC should be though (data bombs, tar pits, etc.)

1. (All IC also Probe IC)

No, but make it so the Probe functionality can be added. This feeds customization.

D) (Attributes redistributed on the fly)

No opinion

1. (Overclocking)

I'd avoid it for now.

E) (Drop memory requirements (like SR4))

No

F) (Agent rules are kinder,)

Yes

(Drones are agents with bodies (SR4))

Hmm... It would be cool if some were. More on this later.

G) (AR for simple actions)

Yes, definitely. People should be able to do a certain amount of stuff through this simple interface; search for information, give simple commands to their trid, give basic orders to drones, etc. This is commonsense functionality, allows for non-deckers to feel the world is more wired, and gives deckers and riggers the flexibility to play their class without completely disengaging from the party.

HOWEVER, this should in no way be a replacement for decking. Imagine this allows for things you can do with no utilities. Nothing complex or too fast. Captain's chair only with drones, no decking against anything tougher than a Blue host. To really do stuff drek-fast, you still need to get into the mud with it.

H) (Drones and matrix simsense feeds are identical)

At times it should be. I feel that many drones should be accessible through the Access Slave actions (which require the appropriate skill). The little cleaner drone in your house is modified using that, and the security drone can be given orders by the decker. However this functionality can be disabled, and a pure decker can never jump "into" a drone, nor can a rigger function appropriately in the matrix without the appropriate gear and skills

I) (All electronic devices can be hacked)
1. (ACIFS of 2*rating)

Some should be. A trid can be. We need more small time gear. But most can't. Cyberware can't, too much is firmware or hardware. ACIFS*2 is reasonable.

J) (AR for everyone!)

As above, yes. This also helps fulfill Kage's dream that everyone needs the computer skill (without requiring they put down a few thousand for a deck). This can also tie into the Credstick question, since everyone has a way to interact with it (although while instructions may be sent using a third device, the two credsticks only actually exchange money between them through physical contact, helping to increase security.)

K) (IC should search for the decker)
L) (Decker can deceive IC directly)
M) (Legit users dumped with no tests)
N) (Prices for legal computers listed)

Yes to all for reasons I've already specified.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirBedevere
post Jan 31 2007, 06:49 PM
Post #230


Knight Templar
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 212
Joined: 20-June 04
From: Ipswich, UK Just South of the Stinkfens
Member No.: 6,424



I'm pretty much in agreement with you nezumi with the exception of:

D) Agreed

1) Disagree
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Mar 7 2007, 04:18 PM
Post #231


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



I was up last night thinking about the security tally problem (yeah, I know).

I think the best way to setup matrix security is keep it analogous to physical security. A host is akin to a facility.

Our decker is an intruder. He doesn't attract notice because of his Masking rating. It works by maintaining and creating several false facades it presents in response to standard queries. If the query is actually more along the lines of a password, Masking isn't sufficient, because it can't represent something based on the surrounding terrain, so the decker has to use its Deception utility. Analyze is a more pointed, more thorough query, and so that's the only point where Masking is at all tested.

If we go with this, we can assume that any user who is authorized or who is running a legal deck (no masking attribute) does not have this benefit. There is a clear electronic trail connecting the user to his actions. He has a personal security tally, and if he does bad stuff, he is the only one to suffer for it. We can also safely assume that around step 6 or 10 or whatever, there is a "boot user" command on the sheaf. Authorized users get a few probes on the initial misstep, then booted, and their information is sent to security to follow up on. Everything is nice and contained. This also means the validate account action is not such a great action because it means if you do something the system KNOWS is wrong, you don't have a lot of leeway.

Our decker, however, does not leave such a nice trail to follow. He can't be dumped because the system doesn't know which icon is him (since his icon is constantly shifting). If the decker goes into an area of the host where there is no activity, and the host is complex enough to recognize this anomaly, it can then determine that any activity there is illegal and all icons there should be dumped. This would be a good anti-decker trap, he enters a room with no exits, and the system dumps him (or whatever). But as long as the decker stays to areas with other active icons, there is so much activity the decker simply 'blends into the crowd'. It would take too much processing time to determine which of the two thousand actions were linked to which icons (remember, there are more than IC and deckers working in the system, there are legitimate business processes which Masking mimics as well), and by the time the system determines which icon committed the action, the decker is already elsewhere. The system just can't get a lock.


HOWEVER, the system DOES know 'something' is happening and where its happening, and it can respond by following the security sheaf. First it sends the low level IC to determine if it was a glitch, then continues on up. Since the system knows where, it can immediately spawn IC at the location of the last illegal activity. Unfortunately, that IC has to now actively search for the decker, using analyze icon on different objects (since the decker is still part of the crowd). This gives the decker a little more time since he's found. All non-reactive IC would rely heavily on Analyze Icon as it goes through to actually determine which icon is anomalous, and therefore should be followed or dealt with (I can imagine sometimes glitches cause business process icons to appear odd, and the IC then attack that instead, crashing the process).

So there are a few changes from the current rules:
1) IC reacts instantly, but it takes time to FIND the decker. The time is based on how much activity is in the area, how far the decker has moved, and how much in the way of system resources are dedicated towards running this piece of IC (in other words, rating of the IC).

2) The process of finding the decker is pretty simple. Analyze icon, if it comes up as anything other than what it should be (legitimate icon), the IC does whatever it does. If for some reason, a legitimate icon appears odd to a probe IC, the IC NEVER REACHES THE DECKER! If it appears odd to a gray IC, the gray IC crashes it (since it can't fight back), and resumes searching.

With both of these, Evade Detection (and therefore, the Icon's Evasion rating) can be used to put more distance between the decker and the IC before the IC locks on, possibly making it so the IC never finds the decker at all.

3) Security tally is applied to the lowest level possible. If a legitimate user commits illegal operations, only that user has a tally. If it can't be attached to a user, that region (that node and the neighboring nodes) have a tally, with surrounding nodes perhaps having a slightly lower tally. If illegal actions are fairly dispersed, indicating the decker is moving quickly, this can result in the decker either "outrunning" his tally (since the actions in two very separated areas are too far apart for the system to think they're related), or may result in an increased tally across the system. A pair of illegal deckers on opposite sides of the system may see some very odd results with the security tally. Decker A may get a probe, then a few turns later, see Black IC, because the global tally is being bumped up by Decker B elsewhere. Legitimate users, however, only see a slow down in the system as more resources are dedicated to hunting IC.

3b) A system may decide to try and isolate a hacker. This includes not only 'no-exit' rooms, but actually disallowing any traffic from one node (or one group of nodes) to the rest of the system. This is a very dangerous thing to do, since it not only cuts off the decker, but stops ALL processes, legitimate or otherwise from conducting business that extends beyond that area. However, this is obviously better than a shut-down. An unwary decker with a high tally may find himself suddenly trapped in one part of the system, as its inundated with white IC.

4) IC serve as the host's eyes. That means if a decker has a probe tailing him, the host has a lock-on. IC does not have to hunt, it just goes to where the probe is. Similarly, the system doesn't have to hunt and can bump the decker when it likes. Wandering around with a happy probe is far more of a threat than it was before.

5) Reactive IC is linked to an action, so will always hit only the icon who commits the action. They don't need to hunt. Similarly, stationary IC (like a blaster posted at a valuable node) will analyze every icon that passes by and will automatically attack suspicious icons, regardless as to their tally. These are the sentries.

6) Increases in alert levels are system-wide, and possibly network wide. Alert just means the system is being more cautious.

As an aside, there should be more visible activity than we get from reading the rules. There's a line in the matrix section about how 99% of the activity is blocked from our eyes. But I ask, how are you supposed to interact with a world you can't see? Yes, you can set your deck so it doesn't show the icons of users, or of business processes or IC or what-have you. But that's something you'd manually set, otherwise you see EVERYTHING. On the flip side, due to the decker's masking rating making him ambiguous, normal users and processes will regularly "see" the decker for a few moments, but represented as something else like a file, a phone call, another user, etc. Meanwhile, the decker can set his filters to see everything, so he can interact with the whole world. This would include funny pranks like modifying a legitimate user's icon so it no longer appears legitimate or has a tally of 40, so suddenly a bazillion grey and black IC jump out and attack him. Imagine the laughs! But most certainly, the decker's success depends on blending into existing traffic, becoming amorphous.

So what are the advantages of my suggested system?
- Bad things done by legitimate users are handled quickly, quietly and safely
- Bad things done by illegitimate users are restricted in scope, so legitimate users aren't handed an inappropriate response
- The system doesn't simply "know", and IC doesn't magically appear after 1d6 rounds, but the same system, even while its programs attack you, can't just disconnect you.
- If the system DOES know where you are, it can boot you
- This adds much more 'color', since the decker can interact with his whole environment including other users, and can play funny pranks on them

The primary disadvantage I can see is that it makes the rules more vague. The decker increases the tally in Node A. When he moves to Node F, what is his tally? The best suggestion I have is determine how to split large hosts down into sub-hosts or regions, and the tally applies to the entire sub-host. All surrounding sub-hosts have a fraction of the alerted sub-hosts. So a fast moving decker's tally will gradually decrease, but on the other hand, camping out in one area (which is generally what deckers do) will simply suffer the standard rules. This may rely more on having a good GM who can come up with good rulings based on guidelines.


Thoughts? Comments?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 20 2007, 02:54 AM
Post #232


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



Wow, amazing to see all this (semi)-active! I've been gone for... over a year and people are still plugging away; I'm impressed and pleased. :)

To respond to nezumi's points:

A) Absolutely agree that initiative-boosters should be all cyber-based, rather than external-hardware based (I came up with the idea; one has to be his own biggest fan :D). The breakdown, as I saw it, went thusly:
  • "Physical" initiative boosts came from Wired Reflexes (+2+d6 init/rating level, can be switched off to avoid "twitch-fire"), or their bioware equivalent (Synaptic Accelorators, harder to detect but cannot be switched off). These affect actions made in meatspace, but not purely mental actions like decking, using DNI to drive a car, etc.
  • "Mental" initiative boosts come from the Encephalon (again, +2+d6 init/rating level). These affect only purely mental actions: DNI driving, decking, CCSS system-interaction, etc. Encephalons no longer provide Task Pool. Dunno about a Bioware equivalent here, at least not pre-2070.
  • Reaction Enhancers (+1 Reaction/level) and their bioware equivalents (Boosted Reaction treatments, +1 Reaction/level) affect both physical and mental initiative.
  • VCRs have their init-boosting effects stripped out, and only provide the driving bonuses. Essence and nuyen cost are reduced.
  • A given deck can only handle a maximum-rated Encephalon rating of MPCP/3, round down to a minimum of 0. Beyond that the headware is just too advanced for the hardware to cope with, much like having a persona attribute that's set too high.
  • (HIGHLY DEBATABLE): Combat turns could be run like this: if your Encephalon rating is higher than your Wired Reflexes rating, roll the extra die separately. If you get an extra init pass, that pass can only be used for purely mental actions (observe in detail, etc). If opposite is true, any extra init pass gained by WR can only be used on purely physical actions.

B) Agree on redirect making it take longer to find you instead of harder.
C) Agree on IC as Agents as Drone-rains. Also agree that Probe should be a program run on an IC/Agent.
D) Not sure about this one. I do kinda want something similar to modes, but I think this one'll need a little more thought. At the very least it shouldn't be as simple as a complex action.
E, F, G, H, I) Emphatically YES! These are the best parts of SR4's Matrix; we should definitely cherry-pick them.
I-1) ACIFS of rating+5 for all areas (oddly, that better simulates the ranges given in the books, though maybe rating*1.5 + 3 would also work).

J) How about this instead: Computers as an active skill refers to the more advanced uses--programming, conducting advanced searches, hacking, etc--while the knowledge version is used for more everyday activities, like finding recipes or looking up stock quotes. Most literate characters will have at least a few ranks in the Computer knowledge skill just to get by, but only hackers will bother learning the extreme nuts-and-bolts of an active skill discipline.

K, L, M, N) Absolutely.


Also re: the recent essay. This brings up an interesting point: exactly what is the difference between Evasion and Masking, and how should each interplay in keeping a decker's deck hidden? As it stands Masking is far and away more useful than Evasion, especially now that Sleaze is out of the picture. We should really change that. Maybe we should tinker with DF and how an icon is detected in its entirety. It actually rather bothers me that DF needs to be so darn high for a decker to amount to anything; should we be monkeying with that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 20 2007, 03:33 AM
Post #233


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Welcome back! I was hoping you'd drop by these parts again.

Actual responses when I've had more than two hours sleep in 36 hours.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 23 2007, 02:27 AM
Post #234


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



To add a few suggestions to nezumi's list:
QUOTE (nezumi)
Issues without suggested rules:
1. Hacking pool should have more basis on skill or attributes

O) Suggestion: HP = (Int + Wil + MPCP/2 ) / 3 More dependent on attributes, plus deckers IMO should be fairly strong-willed to begin with.

QUOTE
2. Multiple systems for deckers, one quicker for interaction with non-decking PCs, one more expansive, both equivalent except for speed and detail
3. Determine if programming tools is too easy
4. Deck construction rules need to be reworked

P) Well if we're going to have deckers with higher-value 'jacks or similar in their heads, per the cyberware thread, we can get rid of the Response Increase part of constructing a deck. Memory we're basically doing away with as-is, so we can just assume that's part of the regular costs. Also, I never liked how Persona chips were costed separately from the MPCP, and it's especially inappropriate if we go with persona being software-based and adjustable on-the-fly. Maybe just nix this entry as well, and just make the MPCP cost extra?


Q) It seems to me that, if the only time a system ever noticed an illegal action was when someone (a decker) was actually doing something illegal, security sheaves would be far tougher than they are. The only way to justify having such generous security tallies is if tally can be generated by "false positives", that regularly keep tally above 0.

So, maybe as an optional rule, all systems should have a small random amount of tally already present, based on how "public" the system is. Something like:
CODE
System Type                                      Default Tally
small PLTG, host system with few users (>50)         d6-1
Large PLTG, LTG, host system  with
     moderate number of users (50-500)               2d6-2
RTG, host system for large number of users (>500)    3d6-3

And yes, this might mean that some bits of IC are already roaming about on the system.


And another for the "Issues without suggested rules:" section:
5) This brings up another potential issue with regards to practical decking. IMO Detection Factor as it currently works makes decking far too much of a glass cannon proposition at the beginning of the game, and too easy during the mid-game. Unless you spend far too much effort to tweak it using optional Matrix rules like modes (which we are getting rid of), HP->DF, and allowing deckers to start with MPCP-8 decks, deckers end up with a DF of 6-7 to start, which is crazy low IMO.

Without a DF of at least 10-11 deckers are limited to hit-and-run attacks on systems, which frankly is something you should be seeing in street-level games. By the time you hit 125BP characters you should be able to ghost just as well in the Matrix as the adept can in meatspace.

OTOH, if you ever managed to hit that MPCP 10-11 deck, with a DF of 16-17, you could usually hang out in a system all day without problems. The runup seems a little too steep to me; a result of the exponential growth of TN vs. Difficulty.

Should we do something about this? And what, if anything, should we do? Change the base formula for DF to 6+Masking/2? Make DF a Threshold instead of a TN?


Btw, anyone else weighing in on the other topics here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platinum
post Mar 23 2007, 03:22 AM
Post #235


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ontari-airee-o
Member No.: 1,115



I personally think that a cpu should have absolutely nothing to do with your hacking pool. It has so much more to do with your skill, and intelligence. If you want willpower to have an effect I am ok with it ... but I am not a huge fan.

I really like toasting the reaction increase on a deck ... it never made sense to me.
I think the persona chips are messed up and should really be based on the MPCP.

Running in certain modes will allow you to move the values around, and should be reconfigurable on the fly. Like you said ... you need to charge a great deal more for the MPCP.

I never understood how security tallies can accumulate across multiple hosts? I know it is a mechanism to get the decker to leave their house .... but I think there should be reaction penalties or hacking pool penalty per host and not tallies. I think that higher code systems should impose more of a penalty because they will require more upkeep.

green 0
blue -1
orange -2
red -3

I would like to see many more init based penalties since it really hits a decker where it hurts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 23 2007, 06:16 AM
Post #236


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



QUOTE (Platinum)
I personally think that a cpu should have absolutely nothing to do with your hacking pool.  It has so much more to do with your skill, and intelligence.  If you want willpower to have an effect I am ok with it ... but I am not a huge fan.
Hm, good point on MPCP. Maybe (Int+Wil+Computer skill)/3 instead? Remember that lots of other things (Math SPU in particular) add to HP already, so /2 just wouldn't be appropriate at all.

I would imagine, though, that Willpower should be an important attribute for a decker, especially one that runs on hot ASIST. The flavor text describes it as having your skin be on fire, and using the pattern and texture of the burning to funnel information into your skull more quickly. If that doesn't require willpower... yeesh.

QUOTE
I never understood how security tallies can accumulate across multiple hosts?  I know it is a mechanism to get the decker to leave their house .... but I think there should be reaction penalties or hacking pool penalty per host and not tallies.  I think that higher code systems should impose more of a penalty because they will require more upkeep.

green 0
blue -1
orange -2
red -3

I would like to see many more init based penalties since it really hits a decker where it hurts.

Well I can understand the sec tally being inherited thing. If [one of] my firewall[s] is on alert you can bet my whole system will be on alert, just to be on the safe side. I do like the idea of a Matrix Reaction penalty too, if you're going to be tunneling a connection through a firewall host or something. Not LTGs or RTGs though; such systems would be specifically designed for connection tunneling without loss of speed.

I also like the idea of a new Monitored Operation: Masking Tunneled Connection. Essentially you'd have to spend a Simple Action every Combat Turn to maintain each connection you have tunneled through a firewall/host, unless you want to lose the Masking on your connection. Another reason to get an Encephalon, and to try to bypass the [system of] firewall[s] altogether. :)

OTOH, I actually like the idea of the decker sitting in the van with the rigger, hacking into the building by remote. In fact I think that ought to be the default way of doing mission overwatch: have your normal B/E guy attach a wireless transmitter in an out-of-the-way connection spot so the decker can hack in remotely. Only in rare cases should the decker actually need to be there in the meat (I'm talking really complex B/E and datasteals here).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Link
post Mar 23 2007, 10:30 AM
Post #237


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 517
Joined: 27-August 02
From: Queensland
Member No.: 3,180



SR has traditionally placed great stock in the best hardware. Removing the MPCP contribution to the Hacking Pool as well as eliminating response increase means a deck looks less impressive, is the MPCP's main effect to allow higher software ratings?

Unlimited deck memory I dislike. While there may be free shitty Matrix memory through AreSpace & MCTMail, it should be insecure and slow. Having more RAM & HDD space is as desireable as it was 10 years ago so what's the logic behind SR4's unlimited memory - simplifying the rules?

What's tunnelling etc? Is it subsumed under Host Logon tests and Access ratings for the less technically savvy? :wobble:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vvornth
post Mar 23 2007, 11:12 AM
Post #238


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 16-March 07
Member No.: 11,243



I started following this thread in hope to find rules making Decking more logical and skillbased but ended up getting a headache. :read:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Mar 23 2007, 12:17 PM
Post #239


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



QUOTE (Vvornth)
I started following this thread in hope to find rules making Decking more logical and skillbased but ended up getting a headache. :read:

If you want more coherent decking rules, you'll need to be patient. This thread is primarily a bunch of people who understand current decking rules debating on how much should be normalized.

When they are done, you may have what you seek.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 23 2007, 12:25 PM
Post #240


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Yeah, pretty much. I intend the final ruleset to be logical and relatively easy to follow. I do not require any such thing of the discussion leading to the final ruleset. Edit: well, ok, maybe I do require the discussion to be logical. Maybe not logically ordered.

Is someone going to present the argument for why decking should be less reliant on the deck's rating?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platinum
post Mar 23 2007, 01:35 PM
Post #241


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ontari-airee-o
Member No.: 1,115



QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
QUOTE (Platinum)
I personally think that a cpu should have absolutely nothing to do with your hacking pool.  It has so much more to do with your skill, and intelligence.  If you want willpower to have an effect I am ok with it ... but I am not a huge fan.
Hm, good point on MPCP. Maybe (Int+Wil+Computer skill)/3 instead? Remember that lots of other things (Math SPU in particular) add to HP already, so /2 just wouldn't be appropriate at all.

I would imagine, though, that Willpower should be an important attribute for a decker, especially one that runs on hot ASIST. The flavor text describes it as having your skin be on fire, and using the pattern and texture of the burning to funnel information into your skull more quickly. If that doesn't require willpower... yeesh.

QUOTE
I never understood how security tallies can accumulate across multiple hosts?  I know it is a mechanism to get the decker to leave their house .... but I think there should be reaction penalties or hacking pool penalty per host and not tallies.  I think that higher code systems should impose more of a penalty because they will require more upkeep.

green 0
blue -1
orange -2
red -3

I would like to see many more init based penalties since it really hits a decker where it hurts.

Well I can understand the sec tally being inherited thing. If [one of] my firewall[s] is on alert you can bet my whole system will be on alert, just to be on the safe side. I do like the idea of a Matrix Reaction penalty too, if you're going to be tunneling a connection through a firewall host or something. Not LTGs or RTGs though; such systems would be specifically designed for connection tunneling without loss of speed.

I also like the idea of a new Monitored Operation: Masking Tunneled Connection. Essentially you'd have to spend a Simple Action every Combat Turn to maintain each connection you have tunneled through a firewall/host, unless you want to lose the Masking on your connection. Another reason to get an Encephalon, and to try to bypass the [system of] firewall[s] altogether. :)

OTOH, I actually like the idea of the decker sitting in the van with the rigger, hacking into the building by remote. In fact I think that ought to be the default way of doing mission overwatch: have your normal B/E guy attach a wireless transmitter in an out-of-the-way connection spot so the decker can hack in remotely. Only in rare cases should the decker actually need to be there in the meat (I'm talking really complex B/E and datasteals here).

I like your logic ... willpower makes more sense with hot assist so it would be best to keep it.

I can understand a sec tally working for your network, and for any subsystems ,.... but not carrying across hosts. ie... you get 9 sec tally on a green ltg ... how the heck would your system know what the ltg's tally is? If you leave that host and tunnel to a new one ... then the other host would have no idea. (again sub systems are excluded)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platinum
post Mar 23 2007, 01:48 PM
Post #242


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ontari-airee-o
Member No.: 1,115



QUOTE (Link)
SR has traditionally placed great stock in the best hardware. Removing the MPCP contribution to the Hacking Pool as well as eliminating response increase means a deck looks less impressive, is the MPCP's main effect to allow higher software ratings?

Unlimited deck memory I dislike. While there may be free shitty Matrix memory through AreSpace & MCTMail, it should be insecure and slow. Having more RAM & HDD space is as desireable as it was 10 years ago so what's the logic behind SR4's unlimited memory - simplifying the rules?

What's tunnelling etc? Is it subsumed under Host Logon tests and Access ratings for the less technically savvy? :wobble:

although you remove it from the hacking pool ... you still have it determine your max stats, and it can also throttle down your response increase, which really matters.

if you have an MPCP 8 deck ... all you can get is max of 8/4 levels of increase. Which really matters when it comes to combat. Your datajack might be a level 3 but your deck jams you with a bottle neck of level 2.

I can't see doing away with memory .... but a problem is that calculating what is active passive, downloaded etc ... is a huge pain.

What if the MPCP determined the total number of processes and programs running?

the MPCP can run it's level of programs/processes *3. Each program running adds it's rating to the program tally. if you run a process it adds to the tally, and comes off the pile when you are done running it.

i.e. Cyberboi has an MPCP deck rating 8 ... has a max software tally of 24.
Runs a stealth program rating 6, so he has 6 software tally.
he expects some trouble so he loads his attack program 8. (total 14)
He is going to try and find a file on the system so he runs browse 6 (total 20)

pretend he already logged into the system, he runs a search... and finds the file.
he starts downloading 2 files (those are processes so his total is now 22)

he triggers some tracer ice, cannot run his reroute 4 because the tally is above 24, he either has to stop the downloads, or drop a program.

quick and simple way to track the load on your deck, and a really good reason to upgrade.

tunneling is securing a connection through a firewall.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Link
post Mar 23 2007, 02:13 PM
Post #243


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 517
Joined: 27-August 02
From: Queensland
Member No.: 3,180



QUOTE (Platinum)
What if the MPCP determined the total number of processes and programs running?

the MPCP can run it's level of programs/processes *3. Each program running adds it's rating to the program tally. if you run a process it adds to the tally, and comes off the pile when you are done running it.

tunneling is securing a connection through a firewall.

The Bandwidth rules from VR2 and Matrix work by adding program ratings together in a similar manner to your idea.

Tunneling, I gather, is a real world trick. Do you intend to implement it in SR?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Platinum
post Mar 23 2007, 03:31 PM
Post #244


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ontari-airee-o
Member No.: 1,115



well .... basically ... it just means logging onto a host.

if you can get admin access to host a, you can start a connection process to another host b. When the tracer from host b tries to trace you, they get the address of host a. They would then have to crack host a in order to find your starting connection.

logging into the host and starting a connection to another host is what I meant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 24 2007, 01:02 AM
Post #245


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Is someone going to present the argument for why decking should be less reliant on the deck's rating?

Three words: Rigger Black Box.
Remember when we talked about this last time? :) It comes out to one of two options:

1) Either Response Increase hardware has to be added onto everything a rigger might ever be attempted to jack into (control decks, but also all black boxes, since by the rules a rigger can just plug into any rigger-adapted vehicle and drive just fine), or
2) Response Increase hardware just works. No matter how fast your meatbrain can move, the external hardware can keep up just fine.

I perfer the second one because it's simpler. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to argue that an MPCP is not useful anymore, even with that rule, as your MPCP determines how high your program ratings and persona attributes can go. The latter is especially important as we seem to be making Masking and Evasion even more important than they were before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 24 2007, 01:46 AM
Post #246


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



I think we're not talking about the same thing. I was referring to the proposal to take MPCP out of the hacking pool calculation.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 24 2007, 02:20 AM
Post #247


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



QUOTE (Platinum)
I can understand a sec tally working for your network, and for any subsystems ,.... but not carrying across hosts.  ie... you get 9 sec tally on a green ltg ... how the heck would your system know what the ltg's tally is?  If you leave that host and tunnel to a new one ... then the other host would have no idea.  (again sub systems are excluded)

QUOTE (Link)
Tunneling, I gather, is a real world trick. Do you intend to implement it in SR?

Okay, I sense that people are having a hard time figuring out what I mean by Tunneling in SR decking terms, so I'll provide a generalized example. I'll gloss over the exact commands and the fact that the decker will be redirecting his datatrail, etc, and focus on the bigger picture, along with the proposed rule changes and how they would work.
CODE
                                                       
          [RTG]                                      
         /     \                                      
   [LTG1]       [LRG2]                              
     |             |                                
     |             |                                
     |             |                                
     v             v                                
    [D]         [Host1]<-->[Host2]<-->[Host3]        
                              ^                      
                              |                      
                              v                      
                           [Host4]                  

Here's a diagram of a simple network of hosts, with a decker at one end, an RTG and LTGs in the middle, and a modest corporate intranet (PLTG) on the right comprised of four hosts.

The arrows indicate direction of security tally inheritance. Note that this in itself is a proposed rule change; the rules for tally inheritance in SR3 differ from this in a few small ways. Basically those arrows tell us how tally is carried over from system to system. In short, what I'm basically proposing is that LTGs do not inherit tally from RTGs, but individual host systems do inherit tally from LTGs and from each other if they're linked into a PLTG. Note that tally is carried over whether or not a decker is present or not; tally does not rely on a specific user to go around setting off alarms, but is done automatically by the hosts/LTGs themselves.


Okay, let's say that decker D in the lower-left wants to hack into the network (lower-right block of hosts 1 through 4). He's feeling lazy or especially brave, so rather than securing a more direct route to the target hosts--say, via his buddy the B&E stealth Adept and her m4d wire-splicing sk1llz--he's going to attempt to go through the Matrix and its grid system.

3) The first step is to log onto his local LTG. He's not doing this legitimately because he'd be instantly tracked through connection records, so he has to hack his way in. Let's say he generates a tally of 1 doing this. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]Before he even logged on, the GM realized that, this being an LTG for a decent-sized number of users, there would already be some security tally on the system. He rolls 2d6-2 and ends up with (3+4)-2 = 5 points on the tally before D even gets on the grid. So, after D logs on the LTG has a tally of 6, and has likely sent out a Probe IC to take a look around, just to be on the safe side.

2) Next, since the targets are across town, D logs onto the Seattle RTG. Let's say he rolls very poorly, generating another two points of security tally doing this. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]The RTG does not inherit the LTG's security tally, so there is no longer 5 points of tally. However, this is an RTG, so the GM rolls 3d6-3 and gets (2+6+3)-3=8, and sets that as the starting tally. Thus after D logs on the tally is at 10, which for an RTG still isn't all that much. D will have to dodge some Probe IC, maybe a Scout, but the RTG is a big place, and Evasion will keep him safe.

3) D then logs onto the target's LTG. He's lucky and doesn't generate tally. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]Again, LTG does not inherit tally from the RTG**. GM rolls 2d6-2 and gets (6+4)-2 = 8, and so even though D didn't generate any tally himself he still has to dodge around a Probe and a Scout to get to the desired host.

4) D logs onto Host1, the target's corporate firewall. This is a Red-easy host system, because this is a decently competent corp and wants to keep people like D out. Logging in and looking around for the exit caused D to rack up 2 points of tally before he finally found access to the corp's intranet. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]This time there is inheritance from the LTG, because the firewall is downstream of the LTG. In addition, this is a small amount of tally present on the PLTG as well, both of which add together to give the system's initial tally. The GM rolls d6-1 for a small PLTG and gets 4-1=2. He adds this to the 8 inherited from the LTG to get an initial tally of 10, before D even logs on!

So, by the time D gets to the exit to Host2, the firewall has 12 points of tally, almost none of which is attributable to the decker himself, due to the GM rolling pretty well for initial tally. Doesn't this make more sense than having tally only rack up when a decker does something bad?

5) Finally, D is in sight of the corporate webserver (Host2), a Green-moderate host. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]To log on, however, he has to "tunnel" his connection through the Red-easy firewall (Host1), as there is no direct link from Host2 to the LTG. Essentially he's logging onto Host2 through his logged-on connection to Host1. Doing this slows his connection, resulting in a -3 penalty to his Matrix Reaction. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]In addition, since D wants to keep his connection hidden, he has to actively hide this tunneled connection, a Monitored Operation that [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]requires a Simple Action at least once every Combat Turn to properly maintain. If he didn't do this, his connection would stop being hidden, and he would lose both his Masking and Evasion persona programs, basically suicide for a decker.

[INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE] Note that LTGs and RTGs don't impose any of these penalties. First off it wouldn't be fair at all, and secondly I'd imagine that backbone routers would be designed to deal with tunneling without a problem.

D logs on to Host2, generating another point of security tally. Host2 inherited the 12 points of tally from the firewall (Host1), added to D's point generated to make a total of 13 on Host2. This total is immediately updated to all linked systems on the PLTG, meaning that Host1, 2, 3 and 4 all currently have a tally of 13.

6) D then logs onto the accounting server (Host3), an Orange-moderate host, to doctor a few financial records. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE] He has to tunnel through the webserver (Host2) to get to Host3. This gives him a further -2 penalty to Matrix Reaction [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE]and requires a second Simple Action every Combat Turn to ensure the tunneled connection is properly hidden.

7) D then logs off the accounting server, to log into the R&D server (Host4), a Red-moderate host, to steal the models for a new prototype. [INSERT PROPOSED RULE CHANGE] Since he logged off of Host3, D no longer has the -2 penalty to Matrix Reaction, nor does he have to spend the second Simple Action to maintain two tunneled connections so long as he is on Host2. All those penalties come back, however, when he logs onto Host4.


**-The main reason I do this is that otherwise back in step 1 the GM would have had to roll up default tally for both the LTG and the RTG and have the LTG inherit the larger of the two. We could do this, but it would be IMO needlessly complex and hard to explain. I also wanted to make more of a difference between how RTGs work as opposed to LTGs; this makes RTGs more of a communications backbone, with LTGs being a bit more localized and security-oriented.



So, make sense?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 24 2007, 02:21 AM
Post #248


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



Looking through the rules in Matrix reminded me, we kinda also need to change how security deckers work. Currently the rules are a little nonsensical--a new guy coming in every three seconds, from here to eternity? No way does that make sense, especially with this re-envisioning of how tally works.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 24 2007, 02:23 AM
Post #249


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
I think we're not talking about the same thing. I was referring to the proposal to take MPCP out of the hacking pool calculation.

Oh, right. Well, pretty much the same argument then. Note that Math SPU and Encephalons both already figure into Hacking Pool calculations, precisely because they're headware. Or do we want the rigger to get extra Control Pool because of a high-rated Control Deck?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 24 2007, 02:27 AM
Post #250


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

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



A VCR does add directly to your control pool. An RCD is an optional addon for rigging.

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

14 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th April 2022 - 04:35 PM

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.