Has anyone else noticed that the use of blaster, sparky and black IC as threat to a deckers cyber deck is statically pointless?
Most PC's will have at least a MPCP of 6 which means hardening of 4, in total the IC test to damage the deck is a TN of 10 minimum.
And it needs two successes!
Even a rating 10 black IC has only an extreme possibility of taking one point of MPCP of the lowest expected deck.
Why have the threat if it is highly unlikely to occur? After all most players can count and do simple math equations to realise this.
id like to make these IC types more threatening so make crashing of the matrix more intense. Any ideas?
To date I have either suspending hardening from the blaster/sparky test. Which seems very harsh.
Or reduce the needed success rate to one for one.
All help appreciated bar muppets.
Full Version: Has anyone else noticed?
hardening isnt automatic if you build your own decks...
Would you skip hardening?....
from a gameplay perspective, hell no!
blaster and sparky are there to keep teh n00bs out. and prevent them from becoming more experienced.
hell, there is sometimes i wish i was able to access a real life blaster or sparky as it would be one hell of a way to boot someone of irc 
hmm, that reminded me of when custom mirc scripts came with a tool to blast win95 machines off the net with a bluescreen. the os had a flaw in its smb protocol or something that would result in it crashing.
and in this age of reflashable bios's, maybe one could pull of a basic blaster like program? the hard part would be for it to get into the target computer and deliver its payload...
hmm, that reminded me of when custom mirc scripts came with a tool to blast win95 machines off the net with a bluescreen. the os had a flaw in its smb protocol or something that would result in it crashing.
and in this age of reflashable bios's, maybe one could pull of a basic blaster like program? the hard part would be for it to get into the target computer and deliver its payload...
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| and in this age of reflashable bios's, maybe one could pull of a basic blaster like program? the hard part would be for it to get into the target computer and deliver its payload... |
the hard part would be getting past the software guards that keep you from re-flashing the BIOS. I know the stuff I run keeps it from happening.
also, it really wouldn't do anything until you reboot. but if you can mange to re-flash the BIOS, you can probably crash the system.
| QUOTE (Pendaric) |
| Has anyone else noticed that the use of blaster, sparky and black IC as threat to a deckers cyber deck is statically pointless? Most PC's will have at least a MPCP of 6 which means hardening of 4, in total the IC test to damage the deck is a TN of 10 minimum. And it needs two successes! Even a rating 10 black IC has only an extreme possibility of taking one point of MPCP of the lowest expected deck. Why have the threat if it is highly unlikely to occur? After all most players can count and do simple math equations to realise this. id like to make these IC types more threatening so make crashing of the matrix more intense. Any ideas? To date I have either suspending hardening from the blaster/sparky test. Which seems very harsh. Or reduce the needed success rate to one for one. All help appreciated bar muppets. |
THIS KIND OF THINKING IS ROLL PLAYING AND NOT ROLE PLAYING AND IT IS WRONG. YOU MUST FEAR BLASTER IC BECAUSE THE NOVELS TELL US YOU MUST DO SO. A REAL MAN WOULD SHOOT HIS DECK WITH A PISTOL AFTER ENCOUNTERING BLASTER IC IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE IN CHARACTER PROPHECY OF THE FICTION.
lol
I could try that with my player but I think the pistol would be aimed in a different direction.
I am asking for advise on the alteration of a single rule to better represent the game reality. I don't want a "you can not have that so I can punish you as ref" solution.
I want an evolution of game world concept that applies to all deckers, every where better represented by the mathmatical system governing its interaction. phew
Any thoughts in that regard?
I could try that with my player but I think the pistol would be aimed in a different direction.
I am asking for advise on the alteration of a single rule to better represent the game reality. I don't want a "you can not have that so I can punish you as ref" solution.
I want an evolution of game world concept that applies to all deckers, every where better represented by the mathmatical system governing its interaction. phew
Any thoughts in that regard?
PS haven't read the novels and neither has my players. They mumbled something and literary taste etc etc
Have a breakthrough where some entirely too smart bastard, makes the APDS version of IC.
Have the blaster work in conjunction with tracer IC, so while the deckers worrying about defending themself he/she gets traced and has to get the hell outta Dodge before a FRT kicks down his door, apprehends him/her, and hands them over to the troll for a very thorough and unlubed full cavity search.
Have the blaster work in conjunction with tracer IC, so while the deckers worrying about defending themself he/she gets traced and has to get the hell outta Dodge before a FRT kicks down his door, apprehends him/her, and hands them over to the troll for a very thorough and unlubed full cavity search.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| A REAL MAN WOULD SHOOT HIS DECK WITH A PISTOL AFTER ENCOUNTERING BLASTER IC IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE IN CHARACTER PROPHECY OF THE FICTION. |
Real men don't roleplay!
Have you noticed that you can buy an armored case for your deck with up to 8 points of armor, but your cyberdeck still only has 1 point of body, rendering it almost completely moot?
(You can, at most, reduce the number of stage-ups by 1...)
SR3 has a lot of screwy rules.
(You can, at most, reduce the number of stage-ups by 1...)
SR3 has a lot of screwy rules.
Well, it would make more sense to treat it like Hardened Armor... i.e. weapons with Power below the armor rating have no effect.
Make it a hardened armor case.
there's a lot of stuff in the SR3 Matrix rules that don't really make sense. for instance, check out the TN to spot someone in the Matrix--Masking plus Sleaze. at the extremely low end, that's TN 8 or so, and there are no programs that apply.
then there's the fact that the security tally rules mean that almost every RTG on the planet would be crashed on an hourly basis at a minimum--for a place like Seattle, it'd probably be less than a minute between crashes.
then there's the fact that the security tally rules mean that almost every RTG on the planet would be crashed on an hourly basis at a minimum--for a place like Seattle, it'd probably be less than a minute between crashes.
Glad you mentioned matrix perception thats my next target after this one, inter decker conflicts usally end after the first evasion test.
Still any house rules, theories or suggestions to rectify these oversights. I hope to minimise if not eradicate these paradoxes.
Still any house rules, theories or suggestions to rectify these oversights. I hope to minimise if not eradicate these paradoxes.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Sep 22 2006, 04:10 PM) |
| then there's the fact that the security tally rules mean that almost every RTG on the planet would be crashed on an hourly basis at a minimum--for a place like Seattle, it'd probably be less than a minute between crashes. |
Security tallies are recorded for individual deckers. It would take one decker with a shitty deck doing lots of illegal things on an RTG to trigger a crash. And there's not much to do on an RTG except locate/logon to LTGs and tap comcalls. Not to mention RTGs are heavily patrolled by security deckers who investigate any passive alerts and quickly trace/dump the offender.
EDIT: I think the Locate Decker rules make sense in that they are fair. A deck that relies heavily on Masking will likely have a weak Bod or Evasion. Meaning if and when they are spotted they have very little chance of escaping again or surviving a single attack. Not to mention they may have lower Sensors as well, making them effectively blind if they want to detect anyone else.
yes, security tallies are recorded for individual deckers--but when another decker logs onto the system, the remaining security tally from any previous deckers is dumped onto the new decker. that means that one decker can logon, raise nine kinds of hell, log off, and have his buddy logon and raise nine more kinds of hell, for a total of eighteen kinds of hell. a Matrix gang could raise even larger multiples of nine kinds of hell. raise enough kinds of hell, and you force the system to shutdown.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Sep 22 2006, 04:49 PM) |
| the remaining security tally from any previous deckers is dumped onto the new decker. |
Where is that rule? Well screw that one.
I still say there's not much hell to raise on an RTG and trying to do so would be a big mistake.EDIT: Actually, if a tally of 1 or 2 does carry over to every logon I can see how it would accumulate quickly.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Sep 22 2006, 04:49 PM) |
| yes, security tallies are recorded for individual deckers |
You probably remember the discussion, but it isn't this simple. Security tallies are, by strict canon, only for individual deckers until that decker logs off. As soon as that happens, everyone who logs on until the tally clears acquires the logged-off decker's tally.
Yeah, they forgot which way they were going halfway through on that one.
EDIT: I'm an idiot. Way to totally repeat what you said, sorry
Odei: we can't just screw the rule without allowing "log-off-log-on" tally clearing.
~J
Why not say a different decker could log on after a system has been ramped up to Active and not start with a tally? Security would still be crawling around looking for deckers and new copies of IC programs would still activate for the new guy.
I need to dig out my SR3R notes, but I think that was the way we'd decided to do it. Tally is individual, except for triggering a Passive or Active alert—new folk show up with the tally required to trigger that until it quiets down.
~J
~J
Ok had to do this the hard way and work out the stats but am going with my second option.
Reduce the needed success rate to one for one MPCP loss.
The numbers work so am happy.
Reduce the needed success rate to one for one MPCP loss.
The numbers work so am happy.
These rules burps make me wonder if the Matrix rules were playtested or not.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| You probably remember the discussion, but it isn't this simple. Security tallies are, by strict canon, only for individual deckers until that decker logs off. |
arguable. depends on how you read the last pre-example paragraph of the Host/Grid Reset section:
| QUOTE (SR3 page 212) |
| If any decker logs on to the host/grid illegally before it finishes its reset, his security tally begins at the level the security tally had dropped to when the intrusion occurred. |
the key phrase is "before it finishes its reset". if you read that phrase to imply "after it starts resetting, but before it finishes", then, yes, the sec tally carryover only happens if the original decker has already logged off. if you read it literally, though, then the carryover happens regardless of whether the original decker has logged off or not--if he hasn't logged off, the reset hasn't finished.
personally, i prefer to read it literally because it makes more sense (or, well, it makes less unsense, at least). the whole point of decking is that the host doesn't know you're there, or at least can't pinpoint your presence. the host shouldn't know when you've logged off--for all the host knows, you've just stopped making noise.
| QUOTE (Angelone @ Sep 21 2006, 05:58 PM) |
| before a FRT kicks down his door, apprehends him/her, and hands them over to the troll for a very thorough and unlubed full cavity search. |
What is it with Dumpshock and so many of its users' obsession with interracial male-on-male anal rape?
The fact that this one is coming from an Army base makes it even more worrisome.
For the record I never specified the sexes of any involved. It could be a female troll for all we know. "Helga do your thing." Cause we all know female trolls are named either Helga, Olga, or Suzie.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.