QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Sep 11 2010, 09:09 PM)

Exactly as I said: functionally impossible. In the realm of GM fiat. Essentially out of the question and out of the discussion.
You didn't mention that you were using alternate Matrix rules. It kinda, y'know, changes everything? I, like everyone else, would assume you were using the default rules, Tymeaus. In the default rules, programs with *double* the rating of what anyone else can reasonably obtain is a big deal. It's not 'just 6 dice, just 2 successes'; it's double. It's 6 *more* than the other guy, 2 net successes against him. It's every definition of a big deal. It's the penalty for being *blind*, or for meatspace actions while using full VR. It's huge.
Nope, wrong. The entire point of rules-mediated games is to provide the framework for conflict resolution. The rules, by definition, hold you back. They define the limits of what is possible. That's what they're for.

I certainly never said anyone 'didn't deserve to shine'. I said that it's not a non-issue if one character can get +6 to *all* his actions.
I assume what the player 'wants' is Rating 12 for every program he uses. 'Let me help you with that'? It's absolutely the game's fault, because that *is* how it works. That player isn't cheating, or even exploiting the rules; he's just playing normally.
Your argument (perennially) is that rules imbalance never matters, because all players are angels who would never intentional or unintentionally use that imbalance. I know that you say that's your experience, and I'm saying that's wonderful; it's also unique.

You shouldn't apply your anecdotal 'evidence' to the game in general.
Not that it matters, but you're wrong about the emotitoy (again). It's nigh-trivial to get Empathy running at 6 elsewhere, and why would you need to? You've got an emotitoy already. Or did you ban them and not tell me?
I am NOT using the optional rules from RAW for Hacking... even if that would be my preference... But that is neither here nor there...
I can agree that the Rules define what is possible, but you are not held back as long as you stay within the rule set. I can do anything, as long as the rule set allows it... Your statement that "it's not a non-issue if one character can get +6 to *all* his actions" is irrelevant, because there is no mechanic in the game that would allow that, so the argument itself is false... Are you really going to complain if the situational Skill (Automatics for Instance) that is currently required, has characters with a Dice Pool Difference of 6-10 as problematic? For Example... The face who is competant with 8-10 Dice, while the Street Sam has 18-20 Dice. What you should be comparing are the Street Samurai, or the Face, not one against the others...
IF 2 Technomancers can both thread to 12 on a CF, and One takes what he gets on the roll for threading and just rolls with it, accomplishing the goals with what he threaded (and all it takes, statistically, is a whopping 1 Second more to accomplish), why should he be looked down upon? The other Technomancer does the opposite... He Threads, and can only get to CF 8, does not like the result, and Threads again (At that point, it is a Simple Action, you do not get an unlimited "Buy" to get where you want to be with Threading after all, even if that is an interpretation, as Threading takes no real time). This continues until he gets to CF 12. Now, someone will say, "But he could do that in the Morning as long as he has Swap at 2 levels, and then it stays that way." Sure... HE could,a nd deal with ALL of the attendant Physical Drain (I will not let the Technomancer apply no damage because he did not take any of the boosts... that is breaking the intent of the rules). This is probably why our Technomancer Players (I am one of them now) do not just Thread until they are at the Maximum Boost to their CF.
As for the argument that 6 dice is a Big Deal in the grand scheme of things... Have you even read the Threads describing, in very great detail, the dissatisfaction that most Dumpshockers feel is the difference between a 0 Skill Rank and a 6 Skill Rank? It is just 6 ranks, and 6 dice, after all. Not only is it the most common argument in those threads, it is hammered time and time again at those of us who believe that the Fluff matters... I do not remember where you fall on that argument, but the majority here see that as the biggest drawback of a Skill System with only a Range of 1-7... Personally, I do not agree. But I try to structure this argument so that it will appeal to the vast majority.

What I will say is this... I do believe that the difference is great (6 Dice IS 6 Dice, and even if the average result of those 6 Dice is only 2 Net Successes, teh reality is that it is a range of 1-6 Successes)... BUT, in the long run, that is the difference in Hacking of only 1 IP worth of actions, so NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL in the long run (Really, only a single seconds worth of actions for the typiucal hacker with 3 IP in VR)... If that Single IP's worth of actions destroys your game, then something else is entirely wrong here...

Sure... If a technomancer wants to get to Rating 12 in his threaded CF's, he is free to do so, but what I was arguing against is the "I will just roll it until I get there and then sustain it forever" mentality that is prevelant here... People argue that if you can have unlimited threaded CF's that this practice will be common... And I countered with evidence (Anecdotal to be sure) that that is not the case... Our Technomancer does not do this, even though he has Swap at 2 Levels. Typically, he threads CF's when he needs them, and then sustains the ones that he needs AT THAT TIME... it is always situational at our table.

Also, because I know it will come up... What about the Hacker, is he lefgt out in the cold? Absolutely not... If you want a rating 12 Program, you will either have to program it yourself (Very Time Consuming), or you find a Software R&D Facility and you see if you can steal one. The book mentions that it is available (At the GM's Discretion), so why would you not allow the Character the chance to try to obtain one. It WILL likely become the focus of many sessions, if not a complete story arc, but there is no reason to deny the character the chance to obtain it.

ALSO, I never said it does not matter in a theoretical sense... But, In Practice, most of the things that are claimed to be "Just SO Broken" in theory, I have yet to see in actual Practice... Theory crafting is all well and good, but is not representative of any games that I have played in (Personal OR Convention). Maybe your games dwell more in the theoretical realm... Mine do not...

Evidence, even anecdotal, still refutes the claim that it always happens in a game.

As for the Emotitoy... It was banned immediately upon the introduction of the Arsenal Ruleset. Mentioned it many times, and had protracted discussions with Cain about it as well... The emotitoy is ridiculous in its base form. If you want an emotitoy in our game (No Runner has even wanted it), then you buy a drone, mod it out to the best rating you can get (Typically Rating 5 matrix Stats, as they can only be upgraded by +2) and then you buy the empathy software (Rating 5, Remember)... the cost offsets the benefits when approached this way. In Practice, what happens at our table is the purchase of a sensor suite, with the program run on the device itself.

Finally (Yes, I know I am long winded today)... IF you are having trrouble at your table because your Players are Not "Angels" as you say, and they continue to abuse the system "Within the rules"... well, maybe the game should change to what the Players want rather than what the GM wants. I know that the GM structures the game, but without Players that want to play that game, there is no game. Our table went the other way. Our GM told us what the game was about, and we made characters that would fit that game. If we have a character build that is out of line, the GM reigns it in until it fits, or asks us to make a new character. That has only happened a time or two.
It takes both a GM and Players to have a game, and if they are not communicating their desires to each other, well, then your games will tend to have issues. I do not "Exploit" the rules within the TheoryCrafting realm, because it is not fun, for me or the other players. I have as much responsibility to my group as they have to me. If that balance changes, then it is addressed. The Players at our Table are by no means "Angels" but we do understand one another.

Sorry for the Wall of Text...