 Decking, the SR3R way |
  |
 Apr 18 2005, 08:47 AM
Post
#76
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499  |
Ok i know i'm late with a lot of this, for that i'm sorry.
Yup, Like every one else it would seem, i agree. Might i suggest getting rid of Evaluate as well.
Rating based hardware.
Spoof??
Isn't a Host just a REALLY BIG icon on a grid?
Read/Write? Since you are altering the Icon programs code.
Breadcrumbs?
Agree with both. I just don't understand how a program can determine how valuable something is without it being a least an SK.(but i'd still rather see the program gone)
Spoof again? As anyhost that can triangulate will have the nessacery hardware to do so i'd imagine
I like this alot but as Moon-hawk said, have it also limited on the hardware.
I am liking this as well. On to the Sleaze thing, i'd one or other like most people are saying however i would go with ditching Sleaze as it would involve less work as your wouldn't need to fess around so much with the MPCP rules |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apr 18 2005, 10:26 AM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Indeed, ditching Sleaze is less work, and gives you the same end result. Keep in mind that the Persona programs, like all "hardware" in SR are about 5% parts and about 1495% software, going by construction costs. The only possible complication arises from the fact that you can't use Tar to crash the sleaze program, but I don't like that rule anyway as it's horrifically unfair when it does work; you're basically forced to dumpshock yourself right after unless you want to activate all the IC on the host in ten seconds.
As for Evaluate, I tend to agree, though keep in mind the rules for such a program make it so you basically need to reprogram it every month or so. You really have to be on the ball to keep that thing from becoming useless; since it's you actually finding the paydata with your computer skill it's more like a database of what's valuable on the market today. Remember that utilities don't actually do anything themselves; they have to be guided by an intelligent hand to be useful. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 18 2005, 10:48 AM
Post
#78
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Im up for seconding you for dumping it.
Yeah but all it is really is a browse program, it doesn't know what is valuable and what isn't. How can it tell the difference between "Secret plans for world domination" and "Goals for next year" how can it tell which one is the real deal?? Thats where you knowledge skills come in. You Browse for data containing Key words, then sift through the crap it turns up yourself. Much like Goggle. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 18 2005, 11:21 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Yes, but it's a Google 60 years in the future, in a land where Agents and such have Computer skills of their very own. I'm sure in a world with various classes of programmable intelligence--remember Agents and Smart Frames are within the reach of starting deckers--content-recognition is going to be possible, at least to a small degree, and something that can summarize contant for you and check it against a database of "hot topics" would be very handy for evalutaing data. Remember, again, that the utility isn't doing all or even most of the work, either; it's your own wetware that really finds things. The utility just helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2005, 06:06 AM
Post
#80
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
But isn't this the domain of Browse??
Yes but it's your computer skill that does the work, HOw can that help when looking for paydata in a Biotech research host?? Thats why I think it should Browse and Knowledge skills. As it states in the Main Rules, a good set of search parmenters can give you a Tn reduction when performing browse tests. But we are pulling this Off topic a little. Sorry Kage. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 19 2005, 12:46 PM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
No worries, it's keeping the thread active while I'm being slow. Either way, Evaluate is gone and paydata is handled by the GM now.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2005, 03:41 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Guess that answers *that* question doesn't it? :P
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2005, 09:20 PM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Right, where was I. We'll do two to four more sections and then take a look at where we are.
7) Combat Utilities Both offensive and defensive. Do we use Decking to roll the attack, or the rating of the program? Arguments could be made for both sides. We also need to more clearly explain why Black Hammer and Killjoy determine their damage based on the host they're being used on, but I believe that that's the proper way to do it. Does anything else need to be altered/dropped/etc? 8) Guardian Do we need this? I'm inclined to drop it in favour of hardware, but that creates iffy things like people getting around it by just taking out the Guardian chip. Thoughts? ~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2005, 09:32 PM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,587 Joined: 25-January 05 From: Berkeley, CA Member No.: 7,014 |
I've always thought Attack Program = Weapons. So they have a power level = rating and damage level based on the multiplier.
Drop Guardian in favor of hardware. It shouldn't be "just a chip", but an overall measure of how much security the deck casing and the hardware has, like a maglock. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:04 AM
Post
#85
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
In regard to combat utilities, having the attack based on computer skill brings it into line with other types of combat resolution, which may come up later in SR3R.
Having attacks as simple actions seems a bit unnecessary and overwhelming but I don't know if changing this would upset balance?? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:24 AM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Why would attacks as simple actions be either unnecessary or overwhelming?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:34 AM
Post
#87
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
That's how it works according to info@shadowrunrpg. I'm not sure if it was Rob or the new ShadiwFAQ who actually answered that question for me, but it makes sense. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:40 AM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
It may make sense, but it isn't what the book says (indeed, it's quite explicit on page 226 that you can use hacking pool dice to augment the program, not the user's Computers skill). Personally, I think it makes sense both ways.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:46 AM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
We've had this discussion before, and the book reference can be read either way. This is the reason I asked for clarification in the first place. The response from (I think it was Rob) said that attacking in the matrix works the same as anything else in the matrix, using the Computer skill against a TN modified by the program.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:50 AM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I disagree that it can be read either way.
Woah, he said there was a TN mod? Whatever he was on, I want some. In any case, in this particular case what SR3 canon is is mostly irrelevant. Your vote is for skill? ~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:52 AM
Post
#91
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Let me dig up the response ... Nope, he didn't. I must have made that up. :D Here is the actual Q & A ...
Regardless, my vote is indeed for using the skill as opposed to the program rating. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 20 2005, 04:59 AM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
Unnecessary in that one attack test is faster than 2.
Overwhelming because the 1-2 punch soaks up resistance pool dice. I always consider actions (for people of the same speed) should alternate. A attacks then B attacks rather than A attacks twice then B attacks twice. This may have an adverse effect on decking manouevres however. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 05:16 AM
Post
#93
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
More to the point it's a philosophy that would have to be applied to ranged combat to be consistent. I'm not sure I like the idea, but if anyone else has an opinion feel free to chime in.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 06:27 AM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Guardian chip. thats the one where you need a passcode to use the deck right? I like the idea, and if it's actually apart of the memory (what ever we deside for that) then it can't be simply "pulled". Though i don't think it would hurt the game that much if we were to get rid of it.
I Abstane :P On the Attack roll. Dice for attack= Computer skill (Decking), With power and damage being the program get my vote. As for the Damaging effects of killjoy/ Blackhammer. I agree that the current way is right, but as for explaining it maybe you need the processing power of the Host, which would help to explain why they are so difficult to wright. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2005, 06:34 AM
Post
#95
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That's actually exactly what I've already used in my games. Let me get the relevant SotSW shadowtalk…
(With thanks to Alex and Kanada Ten, who chimed in with parts of that) ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 21 2005, 03:11 AM
Post
#96
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
Funny that you mention it.. Our rule on ranged combat is that if an attacker states they are firing 2 shots in a phase, the attack is resolved as a 2 shot burst complex action, the same applies to 2 [3 round] bursts. It's quick to resolve and removes the 'shoot once and see what happens' mentality which detracts from the mood. Also, for consistency and simplicity, should decker (and melee) combat use the ranged combat resolution rule where the final net success are used to stage rather than staging before damage resistance tests. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 21 2005, 03:12 AM
Post
#97
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
As above
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 05:49 AM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Guardian is now misc. hardware, Attack now uses Decking with Power determined by the utility. The more I think about it the more I think it makes more sense the other way, but this way is probably simpler.
Link: your concerns are noted, but unless we do end up changing ranged combat or initiative cybercombat will continue to have two simple actions with a simple action for attack. Compressor would logically be next, but for that we need to answer… 3) Active Memory and Program Sizes Do we keep canon active memory totals and rework current utilities to balance? Do we alter canon active memory totals? Do we scrap them altogether and put in a different balancing mechanic? ~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 09:01 AM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Personally im up for keeping the program size's the same and sorting out the memory issue. But then i've got no issue's with the maths and now that we've dropped a few of the utilities is not that much of a pain then it was.
What sort of thing did you have in mind to fix it? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2005, 11:16 AM
Post
#100
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I didn't have anything in mind. I think it's a very good balancer, but am open to the possibility that some might consider it more complex than warranted.
~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th April 2026 - 01:38 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.