It's underlying to the INFORMATION. Big, bold, and beautiful.

Right? Isn't that what this is all about? You want to be able to tell your device to do something, and it behaves intelligently based on that instruction? So when your tune your radio into the AM band, it understands how to extract the music from the carrier wave? Or when you tell your smart linked pistol to eject a clip(*cough*magazine*cough), it understands that you didn't mean: Fire in full auto?

All this stuff in between your command, and its interpretation, aren't magic. They're defined by standards, protocols, and implementation.



The entire means by which an Information System is capable of operating on information is the cumulative result of layers and layers and layers of logical constructs of information which, ultimately, are implemented using something eventually tied to the physical behavior of our universe.



Okay. Now wired and wireless operate at the same speed. Really that's so secondary to the point I'm not really even sure why you're bringing it up. Did you want to agree that they did operate at the same speed? Okay, fine. Did you want to say that they don't? Okay, whatever, I'll agree with that to.

Can we not revisit this point? Because it's, like, not related to any point I've made whatsoever. Let's just operate forward going: However you want the relationship between wireless and directly-wired to work, we'll go with that, and I'll make a T-Shirt that says as much for us and we can wear them around together.

The varying degrees of responsiveness depend entirely on what you need your system to do, and how you're able to do it based on the limitations of various implementations. For instance, if you would like to conduct prime factorization with every computer you're directly connected to, while I conduct it with every computer within a square kilometer of myself, we're going to have dramatically different response times.



Wait, wait, wait...

...You mean like an implementation? So, like, what you're saying is that the implementation and not solely the physical characteristics of a transmission medium will drive the response of a System.

Cochise, this is a big step for us. I think we're going to be friends, after all.

Now, let's just take this a step further and agree that with varying implementations, certain characteristics of a system will influence it's ultimate responsiveness more than in other implementations.



You're discussing implementation with me. This is progress. I'm feeling really good about where we are right now.



I think you may have misread something that I responded to Jaid about, as something that I was directing at you. It's understandable. There's a lot of text flying across the screen.

(Though... I suppose, now that you mention it, since we were just talking shop on implementation, how you authentication, error check, perform function X,Y, or Z in any given implementation probably matters. Right? So, if you're doing it in a way that's conducted inefficiently locally, whether or not it matters when it "would be part of the communication regardless" starts to make a difference, right?)

(Because performing it inefficiently locally != performing it efficiently non-locally.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Stuff needs "Wireless" because we made it that way?

@ wired:

ok, so let's suppose you have to offload everything to other devices because you don't have the processing power locally to handle the authentication, error-checking, etc...

so do tell, how does your device locally manage to authenticate the information from the other devices if it cannot handle it locally? in order for it to even be *able* to coordinate with all those other devices, it MUST be able to handle both the outgoing and incoming portion of the process. absolutely must. otherwise you've got a device that just randomly spews meaningless gibberish into the void, which is then magically interpreted and hurled bodily at the target device causing it to latch without needing to authenticate, error-check, or otherwise handle all the stuff that you're assuming neither the sending nor receiving device can handle locally.

if you've got a device that can offload it's job to another device, then you have a device that is capable of handling every aspect of sending information to another device. because otherwise you can't offload anything.

so if there's some super-duper complex authentication process required that needs a bajillion computers... then our device cannot handle offloading the authentication process to those bajillion computers, because it would need to authenticate a bajillion times going outward (and then those bajillion devices would each need to communicate to each other a bajillion times), and then it would need to authenticate the response.

the only way to offload the work of communicating elsewhere requires that our device be able to perform the work of communicating. the only way for our target device to be able to receive the results of that offloaded work requires that the target device be able to receive that information without needing additional processing power.

Someone made an internal fingertip compartment open quicker when routed through the matrix instead of a direct mental command? Right.

The problem with this rule is kind of similar to the one attack action rule. Its one of those rules that slaps you in the face so hard you come out of roleplaying and see the game mechanic for what it is.

Mmmm... Good question.

And the kind of question where various answers will naturally fall short, in one use case or another, from full scrutiny. Why? Because such technology, or implementation, does not exist. And we're going from the 'It is possible that such a construct of Systems Architecture exists', into the realm of 'Build a functional Systems Architecture which conforms to the following standards'.

Is it possible that it exists? It's possible that any logical construct, practical or not, exists. Because it's simply an idea, nothing more.

So, we have an assumption here: That authentication performed locally has parity with distributed authentication. Why is that so? Why does my request for distributed processing power follow the same implementation as my internal retro FM Radio. It may. It may not. There's certainly no rule that says that it must.

That said, it seems to me that there must be some implicit trust that exists, fairly unintuitively, for communication on the Matrix 3.0 that involves distributed processing requests and that such requests cannot be made in a manner to throttle the local resources of the devices offering their services.

It would almost be like, if the Matrix were a stream, the current of that stream "pulled" along devices that were strung together into it so they moved better without any extra effort of their own, relative to devices standing on the shore. Which points back to the qualities of the Matrix itself, more so than trying to nail down some technical specification on authentication, error correction, blah, blah, insert_technical_jargon_here.

Maybe devices that play nicely with others are rewarded for their good behavior, and they get to spend time on the playground instead of having nap time.

But yeah... I think it just points back to the Matrix itself oozing with secret sauce.

And for objections to a Matrix oozing with secret sauce, once again I submit that the Matrix is close to 60 years in the future, and close to 60 years in the past people were still fumbling around with vacuum tubes. A lot can change in 60 years.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

That's what bothers me the most, I think.

Gamist design vs Simulationist design.

Gamist design is where the rules mechanics are more or less designed first, and everything else is then made to fit them.

Simulationist games set down the world first, and then create rules to explain the world.

Both are valid design philosophies. Many early RPGs started out very much simulationist, which is why so many first generation RPGs seemed so scatterbrained with a billion different mechanics for every little thing. Later designers started trying to streamline and unify game mechanics, putting more emphasis on having a central set of mechanics that everything else builds off of. Most current games are a mix of the two, to varying degrees.

Shadowrun has always been a simulationist-leaning system. It's of a later generation than the early RPGs, so it started with a somewhat unified mechanic, the dice pool system. However, pretty much every rule in the game is at least somewhat justified in the game's "fluff". Up until now.

I understand that much of the normal "fluff" in 5th Edition was left out largely because there's simply no room in the Core Book. Okay, that is reasonable. However, some of the new mechanics are so completely disconnected from the setting that they just slap you in the face and scream "I'M A GAME!". It breaks immersion.

Wireless bonuses as a concept are great. The execution, however, has been clumsy and hamfisted.



-k

But it's not missing out on the whole story. Any authentication scheme or transmission protocol or whatever that is dreamed up can be applied equally believably to a wired and a wireless system. And there needs to be a REALLY good explanation for why a wireless, distributed system would have a faster authentication scheme than a wired, closed system.

That's because that's exactly what they are, Umi.

I am glad to see this analysis here. It is refreshing to see that someone sees the validity of both sides. That makes discussion of dissenting viewpoints amicable at least.


I think SR has slowly been edging toward a Gamist centric design with each new iteration. As a Gamist at heart I have welcomed this direction and I will agree that it has continued with this version. Well so far the the information at hand indicates that anyway.


I can understand the frustration that the break in immersion can be frustrating for a sumulationist. I am curious about your perception of the wireless bonus execution. Is your complaint from a simulationist or gamist perspective?

If Shadowrun was fluff-centric the rules would look more like Cosmic Patrol.

Weeeeeeeeell, let's see.

While I shake the dust out of my brain a little, would you minding taking a trip over to O_Baby(!!) and dream up an underlying mechanisms that leverages something between (c^n) or (n!) for us?

I see that both the ol' TSP or Laplace Expansion are in an appropriate threshold.

If you do, let's take the next step together and implement it into our system. Then we can start discussing what sort of circumstances my distributed system beats your stand-alone, and what sort of circumstances it doesn't, then you can tell me why we only need a tiny 'n', and I'll negotiate with you why we need one just a little bit bigger.

Or can we just skip all that, and leave it as the following: Everything. Depends. On Implementation.

...Plus the Matrix 3.0 has special sauce. (Though in the interest of maintaining technical accuracy: it's more of a spicy guacamole dip, than a sauce, persay.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

If Shadowrun was ganist the rules would look more like 4E D&D. I don't ant to play a board game with roleplaying elements tacked on. From the get go Shadowrun put a lot of effort into making its rules fit into the reality of its world. The entire free action/simple action/complex action thing it had gamest elements that also helped represent the idea of what a person could done in X amount of time. The one attack action add in 5e craps on that as it is less about what you could logically act on in X amount of time but a gamist rule about speeding up play etc. The everything wireless rule is a decent in world concept but the way it was implemented went too far too keep the gamist parts feel a part of the world. While focusing on the rules is important, rules are at their best when they are also invisible.

Oh that's ok, I have no intention of taking a trip over there, thanks anyway. Because it's an exercise in futility. I'm saying it's not even close to believable that a wired, closed system has slower speeds for simple data transmission of messages like "1" or "0" than it does for a wireless, distributed system.

You're the one making the claim it's believable. So the onus is on you to create such a system. Annnnnnnnd go!

In the same spirit as your post, I suggest you read these: Bon, Voyage!

... Where the hell does this notion that all "designed from a game perspective" games inherently have the flaws of DnD4e come from? It's fucking ludicrous, if you'll pardon the language.

I think that Catalysis did what they did with the wireless matrix to make the technology more believable... I mean hello, look at modern day cell phones. You damn well do anything with the frakers today!

I'm using a 2 year old cell phone (Atrix 4G) and in a few short months (if Ubuntu keeps their time table) I will be able to take my cell phone plug it into a hdmi monitor and turn my cell phone into a pretty decent laptop. Nothing SOTA, but you know for $100 it wasn't so bad of a purchase.

Giving me a link to the OSI layer of network communication as proof of some fundamental flaw in the advantages of distributed systems in some abstract question answered through an analysis of arbitrarily complex algorithms indicates to me that you're probably familiar with operating inside of the box that someone else has built for you...

...and ill equipped to discuss designing the boxes themselves.

Also, highlighting transmissions rates of '1' and '0' further underscores that you're missing the point entirely: A '1' and a '0' is meaningless without a construct to interpret '1' and '0'. So Transmission rate, without examining other components of our system, is meaningless.

Example: We have a race. One man is in a wheel chair. The other man is not. Who wins?

Answer: It depends on how they're racing.

Answer Expanded: If they're racing down a hill, the man in a wheel chair could very well win. If they're racing to play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata without errors, the man with the most piano training will likely win. You simply can't answer the question intelligently without considering other factors above and beyond the fact that one has free use of his legs, and one does not.

Which hasn't stopped a number of you from making assumptions about how a race should look based on your understanding of races you've seen. But Matrix 3.0 is not a race you've seen.

That said, if you'd like to use that framework as a reference: Your wired solution will likely incur advantages at the bottom most layer. But with sufficiently complex underpinnings, your non-distributed system may begin to run into problems at the top most layers. Also, just a thought, submitting a model for network communication is probably inadequate when discussing the operation of a system. As, once again, that's only a single component to consider.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

I had a bit of an epiphany just now,

There was a risk in the press a while ago where certain Pacemakers were hackable, that led me down the route of this isn't so far away believable, in naivette at first.

the consideration is this new matrix .. I believe that it is NOT based on antennae, it is a mesh of every device that is live.

The "new" protocol or secret sauce is that makes it loss-less and latency free.

Thus any new cyberlimb or other ware that would be installed with DNI or wires or fiber optics or other, suddenly needs much less invasive surgery (Receiver & Transmitter at limb and brain) and suddenly it's online faster than you can blink.

now,

take the activation of finger compartment or snap blades as examples

the difference between the actions Free > Simple > Complex ..

isn't a matter of segments of time, it's a matter of complexity of the meta human brain. (speaking is free and simultaneous with simple or complex actions)

it has nothing to do with the computational power of whatever network ... it is simply the fact that it used to take a "Concentrated action" now it only takes a thought

You can still do it the old fashioned way if the matrix is jammed or disabled, BUT then the signal (You concentrate for a complex action) needs to pass via the nervous system to the device, it's nothing to do with latency, it's to do with concentrating on an action that you are used to doing via wireless

Anecdotal: Daily you work on a tablet device with touch screen ... then one day the capacitative screen stops, you plug in an old mouse ... how much more difficult is it to perform that action.

that's my 2cp on rationalisation .... how it goes for hackers and etc. I've never been much of a hacker so I leave that to you

I STILL dislike the whole affair of bonii, but I can imagine the world in which this is now current.

Interesting! Though it's certainly worth noting that eventually the human brain itself will be upstaged by a sufficiently complex network of devices. Eventually. It seems like that should play into this, somehow.

Still, I think this plays nicely with my theory that the Matrix 3.0 pulls devices along with it through it's current, to once again use the stream analogy, relative to devices standing on the shore.

I'll chew on that, great thought Mach_Ten! (Don't let the people who disparage your lossless/latency-free element get to you.)

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Thanks... I think ?

it is a bit of a step, to think that we would move from skinlink and wires and finally go wireless, but we have as humanity, done it before without imagining the consequences
and then when the corporations have gone "Wait a minute.. we can do something utterly evil with this !"

I mean .. we have mobile networks, it wasn't long before suddenly the NSA was aware of EVERY communication we made .... who'd have thought ?

Sure. You can probably sidestep some of the loss/latency criticism by throwing the word 'relative' in there. Because the Physics nuts will harp on you a little bit for trying to break the application of, among other things, entropy to your signal. That said, when comparing two systems relative to one another, you can get a little more slack for saying that one feature is an order of magnitude larger/less-efficient/whatever, than another.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Just a short one:

Is gear that gives you a wireless bonus affected by noise?

or I can say .. "Because .. TECHNOLOGY!" ?

I get the whole arguments around the OSI model, it bored the crap outta me learning that bastard ... but, what happens when we completely surpass what it offers ?

I mean .. TCP/IP can't last forever, new and better protocols come with new and better technology.

Who is to say that in 70 years, we haven't made wireless comms faster and more efficient than wired (and doesn't cause Cancer or turn you into a Ghoul)

I can only imagine that the Matrix 3.0? is a hive-mind of every device,


all of my PAN are talking to each other 23323232323332333
there's my Comm that does translation maybe to anything without my personal encryption key 10100100111010100
and the guy I'm stood talking to with his PAN 878787887887887

thre's thus no cross channel interference BUT any free cycles can be accessed by anything, the personal AES key stuff gets priority though for QoS.

again, my interpretation. if we can get past wires are always better ... cause "it's the future!"

Good question. I haven't seen the rules. I'd guess that the question of signal loss from noise has probably been streamlined out of gear bonuses, and if it applies, it's likely limited to undertaking actions in the matrix.

You might have found something like that in the rules of earlier editions, but upon hitting 4th (from my limited overview of 4th edition), it seems like there were numerous streamlines aimed at lowering realism to improve playability.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Well. That seems rather strange to me, given the fact that hackers, who run really advanced technology like cyberdecks, are affected by noise ...

Your post...just wow. Take it easy man.

Hehehe, okay.

At the end of the day, I'm just saying there's more to consider than just the underlying model for how things communicate.

What they communicate, how they operate on what they communicate, etc, are all important questions to answer as well.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Then you're in the realm of handwavium, that quite obviously breaks immersion / suspension of disbelief for others.



The problem there being, that TCP/IP is not what the OSI model is about. TCP/IP is just an implementation that happens to (somewhat) adhere to the abstract concept that is formed by said model. The model itself can be applied to virtually any form of communication and so far nobody has provided one that is "better" nor has this model been proven to be faulty.



Let's just say that for the most basic transportation layers (the physical cable - be it copper or even fibre material) that is extremely unlikely from a pure physics standpoint unless things like quantum entanglement are involved. SR technology has not introduced the latter and so far made the basic assumption that real world physics do apply. From a purely theoretical perspective it's possible to assume that transmission speed of wired and wireless transmissions can get identical on the pure physical layer ... but wireless tranmissions getting faster than wired ones on a physical level? That's pretty much impossible even under the known conditions that exist within the SR universe.

Now you can try to claim that - for unknown reasons - the SR physicist have found a way that turns our real world knowledge upside down, but quite obviously there are many players who would simply not buy that story. So neither your "cause TECHNOLOGY" nor the "cause it's the future" will satisfy that particular group of players.

The alternative is what someone who I won't personally adress anymore tries to stipulate in order to provide such an explaination that sounds reasonable enough not to break their immersion / suspension of disbelief. : The communication between two distinct endpoints is slower when the two devices try to communicate directly, whereas it becomes faster when the communication is established over a route where both devices are able to offload the computational requirements onto a mesh system. Now this stipulation has various problems, not just from a technical standpoint but also from within the game universe and its world logic. Part of those problems can be explained with the OSI model quite well:

1. Since "we" more or less removed the PHY-layer as plausible reason for differences in transmission speed (and thus also for system responsiveness), the slowing effect must occur on higher levels ... which fits with the stipulated situation, but doesn't provide the required explaination.
2. Just as the transmission medium becomes irrelevant, it's not actually plausible that a protocol / computational power induced slow down can occur on layers 2 and 3 (data link and network layer), because if the involved devices actually do have problems there, they simply cannot adress other devices regardless of whether the next availible communication point is the directly linked second device or any of the mesh nodes that would have to route the transmission to the second device. So the hinderance must be further up the chain.
3. The first potential candicate would be on the transport layer that is responsible for establishing end-to-end connections (which we desire when we want two devices to "talk" with each other. You actually could plausibly stipulate protocol bloat that leads to computational requirements that could exceed the locally availible power for getting system responses within desired timeframes by introducing numerous flow control mechanisms, error detection and lots of other stuff ... thus moving the computation times - as absurd as it might sound - back into microsecond realms for a single packet instead of the nanosecond frames we see these days (and could also be assumed to be vastly shorter in the future if we use your "it's the future" approach). Any higher up layer except for the highest (application layer) would - in theory - be equally "suitable" for the introduction of protocol bloat ... So "we" will have to deal with that further down.
4. The highest layer doesn't quite qualify, because this is the layer where the pure data that represents the information, that is intended to be transported between our two devices, is of interest. One of the highly debated information transmissions in threads like this is the "signal" that causes a chemical seal to activate / deactivate. For the sake of this discussion lets just ignore the fact that the firmware of such a circuitry would certainly not implement the full seven layers, but rather collapse anything above layer 4 into one block. Let's also say that the information really has to travel up there in order to deliver the 1 (maximum 2) Bit information that causes a physical switch between two states. Interestingly enough the fact that such a change of state only requires such a minimal amount of information demonstrates quite well that something like that will cause serious overhead once the transmission is implemented in such a complex manner.

Now let's see where the (main) problem lies with the assumption of the stipulated protocol bloat in no. 3 with regards to the SR universe's plausibility. Questions would be:

1. Why on earth the SR hackers/deckers are supposed to be capable to tamper with all transmission protocols and technolgies for purposes of Matrix decking and even attacking matrix-enabled devices, but fail to do so when trying to provide a direct wired or wireless point-to-point connection between the two devices we're talking about in order prevent the actions I just mentioned?
2. What prevents them from hacking the involved firm- and software?
3. On a more general level, which particular trait of the Matrix protocol makes impossible to bypass protocol limitation while still being hackable?
4. What particular reason makes the megacorps actually implement something like that within their own realms of security? Sure, they'd like the information as well as the control possibilties for standard consumer products, but having GOD putting its hands around their neck within their private turf is just not plausible, just as it is implausible that they would not try to provide their own security staff with the majority of the debates "bonuses" while simultaniously shutting down unwanted Matrix access within their facilities?
5. If there is no satisfactory answer to the previous questions: Where's the black market where the bypassing technologies are traded? Because that's where professional criminals like runners would go first ... right before trying to get their hands on the technology itself by getting it from corp security with brute force.
6. What happens to the concept of matrix bonuses as incentive for opening up to combat hacks, once bypassing technologies enter the scene?

Note that these questions are not even remotely touching an explicit implementation and even someone with a gamist attitude might find at least some of them worthy enough to demand a satisfying answer.

Christ, people, knock off the comp sci. All computers that operated on what we would consider recognizable architecture exploded in like 2035 in this setting.

What our Network Engineer friend has forgotten, which is not uncommon for the profession, is that Information does not exist for the purpose of being transmitted across a network. The network exists for the sole purpose of transmitting Information.

Therefore, the fundamental failure of addressing this subject in terms solely related to network communication, is that once any given model of networking has passed whatever it is transmitting into its upper most bounds, a new logical construct takes that transmission and performs additional operations upon it.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Despite the potential confusion as to why I'm adressing you now: I will have to ask you once more to stop your ad hominem attacks and claims about what I might have "forgotten". Because that is quite obviously against TOS ... And just a little hint: Just because I referenced senior network engineering knowlegde that doesn't automatically make me one ...

Understood. No problem, let me amend my statement then:

What the statement put forward by our non-Senior-Network-Engineer has not addressed is that: Information does not exist for the sake of networking. Networking exists for the sake of Information.

And thus to answer questions that include, but exceed, network communication models requires that the system discussed must be viewed and discussed holistically.

-Wired_SR_AEGIS

Its almost like you didn't read what I was quoting. Yes its ludicrous, that was the point. It is as ludricrous as saying if it has a fluff perspective it would be like cosmic patrol.

Might be more a lack of context - I'm not familiar with Cosmic Patrol. However, if Shadowrun's rules spun out of a fluff perspective, it would be very, very complicated. Every tradition would need to have different mechanics for their magic and spirits (UMT having been brought in the justify a gamist change in the fluff), which isn't much of a problem with 2 traditions but with the existing variety... Kinda crazy. And that's just one example.

Sure and if it was spun just out of the rules without tying it to the fluf at all it would have an absurd quality as well. SR did a good job of trying to make sure the rules were solid but supported the fluff. IMO all RPGs should shoot for that. It is a game so I want a smooth gaming experience, but it is role playing so the rules should not be so jarring that they hinder it. You can trend one way or the other and still have a good game its going to the extreme on one side where things tend to get skewed into something weird.

Right, but hacking has had a few noteworthy game side issues for a while now that, without these changes, would actually be worsened in SR5. So the question becomes: where is the balance between severity of a game issue and lack of quality of the fluff explanation?

That's exactly how the magic system used to be RHat.

Where, as I noted, there were basically just the two traditions. In order to expand that into the wonderful variety seen in SR4, there were two options:

(1) Custom write rules for each tradition and provide a complex framework for tradition design. [Simulationist]
(2) Make the traditions rely on the same mechanical underpinnings. [Gamist]

One of those two is untenable. So let's take this as a case study for a second - how bad would the fluff explanation accompanying option 2 have to be before it was no longer worth the goal?

I'm still mystified as to why people dismiss perfectly reasonable explanations for some of the bonuses, but still.

In SR3 you had several Traditions with Rulesets that made them work differently to the others. 12 in total.

Shaman (Core + 4 Path variations MitS)
Mage (Core + 2 Path Variations MitS)
Wuxing (MitS)
Voodoo (MitS)
Obeyifa (MitS)
Path of the Wheel (MitS)

There were also several "Flavour" Traditions that used the Core Mage or Shaman rules with minor variations (less so than the Path options) or used the Path option with differant materials.

Aboriginal Magic
Aztecs Magic
Black Magic
Chaos Magic
Christian Magic
Druidic Magic
Gypsy Magic
Hawaiian Magic
Hindu Magic
Islamic Magic
Norse Nagic
Qabbalistic Magic
Rastafarian Magic
Shinto Magic
Witchcraft

Some of the above function just like the RP tradition flavour does in SR4, others also had their own little sub rules. Then there was also Psionics.

And let's not forget the Mad Mages, ranging from guys making up their own tradition following made up books like the Necronomicon to the truly bat-s**t crazy magical psychopath who operate on a totally different level and are so far out there, even the local twisted and toxics move away because the neighbourhood is going too far downhill even for them. Thankfully these wackos are very rare and usually burn up or are taken down fairly quickly by the rest of the magic community, one of the few times you will see active cooperation between some groups.

Well yeah, the NPC Traditions of Mad, Blood and Toxic. (shockingly Insect were just Shaman).

I think from what I've seen on the whole the matrix is good on the rules/fluff side in SR5. My primary issue with wireless bonuses is with the cyber and a couple pieces of gear. The cyber is mainly because the benefits they gain are largely on/off switch style benefits that the DNI you have base don it being cyber wold handle far better than a matrix connection. If smart guns links benefit was you can ignore up to medium cover since outside feeds can more accurately pinpoint a partially seen objects location, hey awesome that makes sense. Instead we get +2 dice which is kind of reflective of having a cross hairs on the target with some wind speed excuse. But at least it isn’t really bad like the open close commands on your cyber. Things like fingertip compartment might be something like can be activated even if your cyber is otherwise disabled. I think a lot of people are letting their dislike of this cloud things so every item or almost every item looks bad. Like the hazmat suit analyzing what is around you. How doesn't that make sense, the chemical analyzer on your suit sees X particles, it goes to the matrix and sees oh X particles are nuero stun, don;t take the suit off dude. On the other hand people who like it are coming up with pretty far fetched reasons why even the fingertip compartment makes sense over DNI.

Problem with your argument there:
The suit does not automagically seal up if it's connected to the matrix and it smells something bad . .
Because
a) it changes the action you need to take to seal it up from one to another and does not do it for you.
b) it does not actually have any sensors, much less that many moving parts needing to seal up at all.

If you are responding to me I am not talking about the seal up part, but the hazmat suit can analyze what the air is like outside the suit. And that makes total sense to me. The speed based ones being faster than DNI don't make any sense.

But the Suit CAN'T analyze that stuff right?
Or does it say it has these Sensorics build into it in the description?
A HazMat Suit only does one thing. That is making you your own little bit of liveable Space.
And usually, it is sealed up per default, not optional right?
Compare to a Space-Suit. Once put onj completely, it is a sealed up environment.
It does not wait untill you go out to space and says:"oh, hey, look, a hard vacuum, you should close me up propperly now!"
Because if the HazMat Suit/Chem Seal worked that way, it would not work at all.
As soon as the danger is detected, chances are good you were already exposed to it. Too late to suit up now that you had your first lung full . .

So were Toxics until SR4 because they lost any meaningful distinction.

Honestly I think Shadowrun needs two systems like in SR1, the rest just becomes so much rules bloat. The mentor additions to SR5 is a good start, but I would like to see it go a lot further. Particularly in the area of Summoning.

But more on topic it shouldn't have a wireless bonus

The relatively few on/off style ones are about the only ones I cannot find a satisfactory explanation for...