It means Technomancers don't really have incentive to be raising their complex forms very high.

Oh yeah, that's the way to do it (be sure to check capacity!). In fact, I've made Bust-a-Move drones into what I call TacNet Buddy whose job is to count as extra people so you can get your rating 4 tacnet when your group is smaller than 6.

However, several things are annoying about the process. It never does say that drones can qualify in this manner (it just says for drones provide channels equal to sensor). It's reasonable and I'm sure most GM's would allow it, but it's not exactly laid out. And if you do, you'll have to refer to drone sensor capacity and the default setup that often breaks it. It's not well laid out at all when it could have been so much easier.

Something like that, James McMurray. Don't forget that there's precedent for splitting into tiers: (1-3), (4-6), etc. It might be easier to simply increase the multiplier after 6.

True, that would especially fit well with the software pricing that already exists.

Hrm,
1-3
4-6
7-9
10

(Or would you go 10-12? Either way, a listed cap isn't a bad idea.)

Hrm...

Another thing to do, to be a complete bastard.
programming options, instead of being programmed separately, add to the total.

I feel like 10, should require access to UV nodes, and AI software assistance, and I would be way happier if 10 never came up, except when doing runs against ZOG.

So, increasing the multiplier would render the Threshold on a Hacking program as:

Rating 1-6 => 2-12 (x2, or normal)
Rating 7-9 => 21-27 (x3, or +1)
Rating 10 (or 10-12) => 40-48 (x4, or +2)

Admittedly, this collapses the difference within tiers (e.g., 9 isn't much harder than 7), so it's a very different curve than sabs described. It all really depends on what you're going for. (If you want to keep 10 really special, which is fine, then you'd just hard-cap it.)

In general, I subscribe to the 'don't invent unprecedented new mechanics' rule, and SR4 is a largely linear-scaling system.

It's possibly also a good idea to apply the increased multiplier to any options you add (so Optimization 6 on a rating 7 hacking program would be Threshold 21 + Threshold 12).

Don't forget that rating determines the number of Options you can have, which does help make a 9 (4 options) better than a 7 (3 options), beyond the basic +2. This is mostly an issue for attack programs, but they can *really* benefit.

Thing is, I want to encourage hackers to build their own program suites. It's good. You should want your own exploit program you wrote yourself, with the options that work best for you.

Exploit, ergonomic, crashguard, optimized. That's something I should be encouraged to build myself.

Current incentives:
Bought software is registered, has planned degradation, (1 rating/(2)month), unknown limitations.
Pirated Software: Degredation, unknown options added in. (Psychotropic, virus, bugs, tracers, etc), limitations.

You know what's in your programmed software.

In some ways, yes... Technomancers are not pushed to quickly obtain high CF's, as they can thread , and it is easier. There is no longer a reason to thread to CF 10 unless it is absolutely necessary... Where the normal rules encourages it.

It forces Hackers to BE Hackers and not Script Kiddies. No More DUMP Stat on Logic... And Skills mean more than Programs do.

At least in My Opinion anyways...

You can still play "bought smarts": skillwires, cerebral booster and good programs. But that's clearly a second-best thing.

I've thought about squared availability/programming thresholds too. In the end it comes down to what you as a GM want from it.

On the one hand, it seems preposterous that a single person has any chance to keep up with the billion-dollar research projects of the megacorps. On the other hand, it's cool and cyberpunk.



I'm thinking about some different approach. Writing from scratch would be really hard, but before you begin a big hacking operation, you can use Software to tweak your programs to optimize them against the enemy; getting the latest exploits and patches, studying system-specific weaknesses.

It'd be basically reversing the Unwired idea; instead of making keeping up to SOTA absurdly hard (with an annoying software degradation system), it makes hackers effective because they're faster to adopt new technology than corporate IT bureaucracies.

A given Software-Skill boost to Matrix effectiveness would be good for only limited time, dependent on the quality of the enemy; it'd stay "fresh" for days against a R3 system, but only hours against an R6 system. As long as it's fresh, you get some sort of bonus for being more up to date than they are.

And that's how it should: script kiddies can get very respectable (Rating 6) 'basic' levels, while people who invest in Logic and skills above 4 will be better. That's better than nuking script kiddies out of the game (TJ ), and it rewards another investment/development path.

I'm fine with a truly amazing, legendary shadowrunner hacker beating a corp (possibly just in one or two areas). It's just early/starter runners doing it (easily) that's a problem. It ruins the cool, for me, and cyberpunk is also about pretty unforgiving competition and inequality.

As I recall, SR3 did a varient of this and it worked really well. As I recall, it was basically rating² multiplied by a static number 1-4 representing the complexity/power of the program.


I'm not sure thresholds, or rather just thresholds, is the way to go. I'd prefer to see a mechanic that lengthens the interval between tests. Consider, for example, coding a R7-9 program, don't increase the threshold but double the interval (from 1 to 2 months). Higher thresholds, thanks to diminishing dice on extended tests, might keep non-optimized characters from coding, while even optimized hackers have few options to decrease the interval (all requiring either monetary investments, edge, or risk)


Fine, no politics, religion, or open source.

The Optional System does not Nuke the Script Kiddies out of the Game Yerameyahu, it just relegates them to their own, insignificant little niche... Very Different, in my opinion.

Good point, PoliteMan. The Threshold/interval issue is really just the same thing, after all. The intent is mostly to slow them down (though barring lower DP coders from the highest programs *is* an intended feature, for me).

And I'm at least 51% teasing about Linux. The real point is that it's a massive, ancient project.

--
That's nuking, Tymeaus.

You could also start applying software degradation rules from the moment they start programing. After all, the SOTA is going to be moving just as fast while the programmer is designing and programming as it is once they're finished.

Along with glitches, that should prevent non-Uber coders from ever finishing a rating 10 exploit program.


That aside, I tend to think that crafting your own stuff in-game is sorta cool, and I'd rather not overly restrict it. If one of my players wants to take a shot at creating a rating 9 attack program, I'm not going to work to stop them (much).

They don't have to go straight for 9, either. They can start from 6 and just bump it a few times. Decreasing DP, glitches? Problems gone. So there's a lot of factors in play here.

To me something linux like is the Hacker System of choice. The ones that run Rating 6 systems, are running some kind of Linuxequivalent for 2072 System.

The Matrix system is too broad, and too abstract in certain areas, and too specific in others.

It ignores differences in FileSystems, OS, Hardware. If I'm Ares, why is everyone of my employees and subsidiaries not using WarOS 4.0. If I'm MCT, everyone should be using either Cyberdine Commlink, or Cyberdine Nexus. The game talks about proprietary file systems, and file types.

There's not enough flavor in the Programs. Especially since people look at you like you're a chump if you don't have Rating 6 programs out of the char gen.

That is relegating them to their proper place, in my opinion...

I thoguht script kiddies were the ones who bought agents with exploit programs

No, those are the ones that even script kiddies look down on. Everyone needs someone.

Heh...

Yeah, I dislike the blandness of programs too. I've though about an alternative:

Suppose you start treating programs like say, guns. There's a bunch of different programs for the same thing (breaking in), but they have all kinds of different traits, like cost, reliability, power, hardware issues and so forth.

Sort of like CP2020 with its hundreds of Programs? Could work, but the system would really need to be redesigned a bit, I would think.

Eh. I've tried my hand at burning down the current system and redesigning from the ground up. Unfortunately, it IS rather hard to design a good Matrix ruleset.

It is... I actually like the current system (optional Rules employed, however). Of course, it oculd have more "spice" I guess, though some of that could be taken care of by the players and GM in how they describe the Matrix.

There could be more options, in my opinion, though I am not sure where to go from where we already are.

CP2020 had an interesting method, but you had to track a lot of things. I like the simplicity we currently have, but it would be nice if it were a bit more complex without providing too much overhead. That is always the problem, though. The more complex it is, the less accessible it becomes.

As I said: tacsofts they can never use.
contributed senses <= sensor rating for drone
contributed senses >= tacsoft rating X2 to be member of group.
tacsoft rating = 3-4
no drone sensor rating exceeds 4

We have here two disjunct sets.

I can't tell if the wink mean you're trolling. I'll just point out that code people write as a hobby is orders of magnitude better than code they write for a paycheck.

That's what I'd like to do, but for now we're arguing RAW.

Hackers are skill + program (hacking + exploit)
Script kiddies are attribute + program (douche baggery + exploit)

There! Problem solved.

If you don't have enough sensor channels to run the tacnet at its maximal rating, you still get the benefits of whatever rating your number of sensor channels can support. That is, for your example, 2.

Improved sensors from Arsenal allows you to upgrade the Sensor package of your drone (or vehicle), and iirc it's openly suggested to individually track the ratings of the sensors.

In that case your entire group gets a bonus of only 2, because if you run it at a higher rating, you can't be a member of the group.

Yeah, I've read that, but I never quite got it. As far as I can tell it doesn't change the number displayed for sensor on the drone stats. On quick review, I can't find any way to relate the sensor package system directly to the drone sensor rating system. Even the table in SR4A doesn't show any direct correlation.

Yeah, but if your group is a bunch of drones to begin with, they still get two dice to a bunch of tests. Which is rather nice.

Arsenal has the rules describing which sensors the sensor suites for drones and vehicles include.

The Sensor Rating of a drone is its base dice pool for perception tests of the physical world (SR4a, page 245). It's a measure of how observant a drone is (along with the Clearsight autosoft), not how many sensor channels it has.

A trideo camera with low light & thermographic enhancements counts as three sensor channels. Ultrasound, radar, and motion sensors would make up three more channels. If you're able to mount all of that into a single drone you've got six sensor channels for a tacnet. Two more and you're capped for a Rating 4 Tacsoft. Then it's a matter of making sure there's enough drones in the network.

Definitely, it's great. I was just pointing out that the drones with tacsofts in WAR have rating 3-4. No drone can ever use a tacsoft at rating 3-4.

I hope so. Let me look it up more in depth.

Nope. Here's my issue: "each drone can supply a number of sensor channels equal to its Sensor rating." UN125

Hmm, missed that part. Honestly I can take that one of a few ways.

One is the way you are, that a drone's Sensor Rating is how many channels it provides and that's it.

The other is that a drone's Sensor Rating is in addition to other sensor systems. The whole line is, after all, "Drones sensor systems also count; each drone can supply a number of sensor channels equal to its Sensor rating." It doesn't say anything about any sensors installed in the drone, which could mean they are added in.

In all honesty I'd ignore that "each drone can supply a number of sensor channels equal to its Sensor rating." part of the line and go with what's actually installed in the drone instead. Probably what the writers of WAR did when they put those rating 3 & 4 tacsofts in the drones. It also makes things more consistent between everything, people and drones. Besides, if taken the other way one could argue that a drone with a Sensor Rating of 4 provides 4 channels to a tacnet and doesn't have to have a single sensor installed (doesn't make sense to me that way, but I know people will try to argue that).

It's pretty obvious what they mean, but I'm always open to something that opens up more options.

Well, no drone in default configuration can.
But that's War for you, why are you surprised.

Just means that you only have to upgrade the sensor Suite... That tacsoft program is damn expensive.

Otherway around, actually... But you have the right idea...

Well, except that according to Arsenal, if I install 1 R6 camera into say a FlySpy, it suddenly has a sensor rating of 6. Even if I don't install anything else.

Indeed... Sensor Suite Upgrade, as was stated above.

I know but Fatum and Longbowrocks were being grognards about that 1 line in Unwired

I was just thinking (as I read the last days worth of posts), that the game designers may have been looking at programming your own stuff in a different light, which may justify the great length of time it takes to not only code, but patch your own stuff. They may have been thinking about it from a reselling perspective. If a hacker can code his own program too quick, make a bajillion copies and then sell it for tons of cash, well, that can easily be taken advantage of. The hacker then just codes and makes way more money selling programs and patches then going on runs.

I think there could be room in the current rules to add, say a program option, to a homemade program that restricts the hacker from every copying it to another commlink (basically, it only runs where they coded it and can never be transferred), in exchange for much faster build times. This may close the loop allowing the hacker to code his own shit and handle all his own patches to fight degradation, but do it in much faster times so he could actually have all his own software coded. The tradeoff would be you can't share it or profit from it.

It would be a single option to add. Fairly simple concept that might put one big chunk of these issues to rest.

That already exists in some way. It's called Limitation.

He's talking about the confusing mess that is the errataed rules for individual sensors on drones, not the sensor upgrade mod. Its quite legal to have enough sensor channels on a drone to use R4 Tac-soft, you just need degrees in accounting and rules lawyering to pull it off.

No, actually you don't... No degrees needed at all... And no rules lawyering either. It is quite simple. Either use the Sensor Rating and upgrade it (A single Camera with a Rating of 6 upgrades the Entire Suite of 1 Sensor to a rating of 6, which will handle a R3 Tacnet) OR you use Individual channels, like metahumans do, and spend the money to upgrade each and every sensor with enough "channels" to handle a R4 Tacnet. It really is not all that difficult to understand. You just have to pick your option at that point. And be consistent, no switching back and forth between options.

I tend to choose the second option, as it tends to cost a bit more, and I have no problems with it costing more. I like the flavour of "Modes" for the Sensors, which is what I see as giving you your Tactical options, rather than some amorphous "Rating" which supposedly covers it all. They both work, but they function in very different ways.

Please note that I'm being a grognard about the whole idea of Sensor as a stat for drones instead of listing which sensors it has explicitly and allowing the rigger to mod them at any time, without installing any vehicle upgrades or anything, just like that. I understand that SR4 (unlike the previous editions, far as I see) is not aiming to be a simulationist system, so I accept the ruling as is.

That rule was written outside of the existence of the Arsenal Sensor upgrade rules.

Don't get me wrong, the sensor rules are stupid. But by dealing with individual sensors and sensor capacities in a drone, you are /much/ better off balance while, and flexibility wise. Sure you run into problems that microdrones can have a camera, or a microphone, and if they have a microphone, you're nto quite sure HOW they move but.. that's a different story.