Full Version: Node Ratings?
Has anybody developed ratings for sample node types? ie stuffer shack, lone star precinct, corp[ research facility, etc. I just want to see if what I have come up with is in line with what others are using.
no, sorry, I haven't. Judging by the current '38 reads, 0 posts' I don't think anyone else has either. Personally, I find the extremely abstract/optional 'topography' they've set up, which basically amounts to ' out what ever the hell you want in there and make them hack it' that appears in the main book to be very lacking. They go pretty in depth as to what you have to roll to hack a system. Then take about three paragraphs to describe a system and what might be encountered.
All in all, I find that the write up they have works pretty well if you stick to hacking drones, commlings, and smartlinks, but if you want to hack a corporate host, you're kinda SOL.
Personally, I'm waiting for the first SR4 adventure to come out, to use it as an example for a system structure, then take it from there,
All in all, I find that the write up they have works pretty well if you stick to hacking drones, commlings, and smartlinks, but if you want to hack a corporate host, you're kinda SOL.
Personally, I'm waiting for the first SR4 adventure to come out, to use it as an example for a system structure, then take it from there,
Look, there's a table called Sample Devices on p. 214.
I'm looking more for something along the lies of a new system architecture/security system personally.
For device ratings, I extrapolate from the before mentioned device ratings table, as well as the basic commlink/os tables.
As for topology.. see my ideas in the Matrix 2.0 Topology thread.
Otherwise we're all on hold for more info from upcoming releases.
As for topology.. see my ideas in the Matrix 2.0 Topology thread.
Otherwise we're all on hold for more info from upcoming releases.
[QUOTE Look, there's a table called Sample Devices on p. 214.]
the table only refers to devices iirc. I'm thinking the corp the developed the rating six deltaware widgit should have a higher rating than said device. I am thinking around four to five ratings higher than device references (as a rule of thumb).
the table only refers to devices iirc. I'm thinking the corp the developed the rating six deltaware widgit should have a higher rating than said device. I am thinking around four to five ratings higher than device references (as a rule of thumb).
It lists terminals, too...
| QUOTE (hunter5150) |
| I'm thinking the corp the developed the rating six deltaware widgit should have a higher rating than said device. |
That's one theory, yes, but given the existence of hard caps in many other areas of SR4, such as attributes and skill ratings, it could very well be that the highest ratings you see listed in the book are actually representative of the very best of computing that SR4 has to offer. In particular, the quote "Some cutting-edge and prototype models may exceed rating 6 attributes, but these are exceptionally rare and hard to come by," (p.212) is particularly telling.
If that's the case, however, what's keeping those big Research Corporations from saving a bundle on computing hardware resources by doing all their computational work on a device rating 6 Credstick? I think it comes down to the fact that devices are purpose built. The Credstick may have some impressive horsepower behind it, but that horsepower is strictly designed to power credstick functions, namely securing financial transactions.
Similarly, it doesn't have to be contradictory that you have a device rating 6 piece of deltaware that was designed on a workstation that has response and system ratings of 6. In this case, the deltaware's device rating 6 represents how good it is at handling the computerized functions of the deltaware. The workstation's ratings represent how good it is at being a complex computer aided design tool. In this case, a complex device (the workstation) was used to design a simpler device (the deltaware, but because of the simpler task demands on the simpler device, both devices can be equally impressive in their effectiveness at accomplishing their designed tasks.
Another idea that's been tossed around these forums, is that of the clustered node. We already know that networks of devices can function as single nodes. The idea behind a clustered node is that you take a network of devices with identical stats, and treat it as one node, except when calculating certain things that are normally limited by the system rating, such as number of simultaneously running programs and number of subscriptions. If you accept the theory of clustered nodes, then you have another means of demonstrating that large corporate nodes are more powerful than any individual device.
In a game I'm playing in, we're using the book rules with aggressive SOTA rules.
Nodes with ratings of 1 and 2 exist, 3 is normal, 4 is high, 5 is very high, and 6 is the rating for things like an FBI datastore. Our SOTA rules aggressively degrade any programs or server-type nodes with a rating higher than 4 unless (relitively) massive upkeep is paid - eithor in cash (like corporate nodes) or in volenteer labor (like a data haven).
Ratings higher than six are reserved for actual pre-production prototypes and unique programs, as well as "silly" hosts like Zurich Orbital and Ultraviolet nodes.
The biggest issue with ratings capping at six (for nodes, maglocks, encryption, everything) is the linear cost progression in the book, although the fact that you defeat most devices in an unrestrained extended test makes the whole thing less pointful than I'd like.
In any case, for rapidly changing tech I like the SOTA concept of rating a relitive measurement. I don't like the same thing applied to attribute changing cyberware (or most other cyberware) - because it can easily be compared to natural attribute ratings (which clearly aren't subject to SOTA rules).
Nodes with ratings of 1 and 2 exist, 3 is normal, 4 is high, 5 is very high, and 6 is the rating for things like an FBI datastore. Our SOTA rules aggressively degrade any programs or server-type nodes with a rating higher than 4 unless (relitively) massive upkeep is paid - eithor in cash (like corporate nodes) or in volenteer labor (like a data haven).
Ratings higher than six are reserved for actual pre-production prototypes and unique programs, as well as "silly" hosts like Zurich Orbital and Ultraviolet nodes.
The biggest issue with ratings capping at six (for nodes, maglocks, encryption, everything) is the linear cost progression in the book, although the fact that you defeat most devices in an unrestrained extended test makes the whole thing less pointful than I'd like.
In any case, for rapidly changing tech I like the SOTA concept of rating a relitive measurement. I don't like the same thing applied to attribute changing cyberware (or most other cyberware) - because it can easily be compared to natural attribute ratings (which clearly aren't subject to SOTA rules).
Except for the fact that in the SR3=>SR4 conversion rules, characters had their attributes slashed by 1/3. 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.