Wireless bonus rules suck. Lets write the tacnet rules they should have used. Then we can submit them as a replacement. And use them instead. And give Deckers something they can actually do and something that would actually be worth the risk.

I'm on board. so would a tacnet basically count as its on grid? sorta like a LAN as opposed to the internet?

I think so. With the Deckers Deck acting as the Router/firewall.
The Decker would act as Burk did in aliens coordinating the team. and protecting the tacnet from intruders.

ok, so hes part of what I propose then, for certine bonuses like the smartgun bonuses (the book discribes it as up to the second weather conditions) you need some sort of sensors for the area to help determine the ambiant conditions. As well as running a Tacnet program on the deck that counts against the max programs for the deck. I mean computing dynamic events with thousands of variables in real time takes a ton of processing power.

Also with having tacnet as a program allows you to do things like complex action data processing+Smallunit Tactics[Tacnet Program] each hit increases the inititive of all plugged into the net by one up to your Tacnet Rating. If you don't think an extra 3 or 4 to inititive is worth it, just remember Han Shot first.

They also allow the Decker to make perception checks in addition to the individuals to notice things thus allowing the decker to point out changes in situations.

The Decker likely pulls in relevant info from their connection to the net.

I kind of imagine the Decker playing this role
http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4/f.../commander-mode

... You do understand that they didn't just use tacnets for good reason, right? Tacnets utterly fail to meet the design goals that led to wireless bonuses.

Sweet, say something useful now.

Bring back skinlinks?

I like the concept, but I'm just saying that it doesn't act as a replacement. With that in mind, the question becomes what the design goal of these rules should be.

The stated design goal is to make deckers useful. Wireless bonuses fail at doing that and make no sense. If I can just turn off my wireless you have not actually made deckers useful.

A tacnet if designed right can accomplish that goal. Especially if you write things such that having a tacnet is worth the risk. Or vital to the success of the mission. And the Deckers runs the tacnet. Giving that player something to do.

The actual role of wireless bonuses is a little more complicated than that. The wireless bonuses, some of which make sense and some of which don't, do several things. First, they improve player agency by making having wireless on or off an actual DECISION. Second, they allow combat hacking to exist while keeping things nice and simple (it's worth pointing out that under the current structure, the decker is quite able to kill drones if need be). Third, they are generalizable to pretty much all situations save for a less than common handful. Fourth, they provide a direct reason for the decker to be present. Fifth, it's bound to the decker directly rather than being a function of the other people on the team. Tacnet rules simply cannot accomplish all of this - they do nothing for agency because you can't let there be very much reason not to use it (otherwise, it fails in other goals immediately), they involve the decker helping others do something rather than directly acting (the Face suffers from this to a limited extent as well, but that's inevitable), it's generalizable only under a number of conditions any one of which could easily turn out to be false, it would be very difficult to write these rules such that they work yet really don't work remotely, and the tacnet is team bound rather than character bound.

Rhat cheer leads for a lot of the freelancers/line dev who made this you need to understand.


Personally Slide, I'm all for this. It very closely mirrors an idea I had as well and my assertions in other threads that making tacnets fully integrated in the core rules... instead of a stupidly good bonus system in a splatbook would have been the correct way to do this.

I wish they had done something more akin to... a smartgun enhances the equipment limit by 2. If subscribed as part of a tacnet it also provides 2 bonus dice. Not simply 'connected to the wired' (Lain reference for those who don't get it).

Things like bonus dice for perception bonus for image-enhancement or attention co-processor or the like make a lot more sense if integrated as part of a sensor awareness net as well. Instead we'll probably see the tacnet make a re-emergence as another stupidly bloated bonus dice pool yet again.

I'd love to see the face of the street sam that gets his brand new Alpha grade Wired Reflexes 2 implant bricked by a decker first run out...

You realize that casting aspersions upon someone is simply a way of demonstrating that you have no counterargument, yes?

No wireless Bonuses do not do all of that.

They are not a direct reason to have a decker present. I turn my wireless off. Boom no need for a decker.

Tacnet rules on the other hand can accomplish all of this and more. If written with the intend that the Decker is the guy running your tac net. In fact by using tacnet rules you give reason to have a second decker in the party whose job is to crack the corporate tacnet. The current implementation of wireless Bonuses is in a word. Stupid. They do not make Deckers more useful. they in fact do not benefit the Decker at all.

And if you are not going to contribute to this discussion please go. Your comments are off topic. The topic is writing tacnet rules that do make deckers useful unlike the current rules.

... So, turning off your wireless means that no one else is going to want the bonuses? I'd say, in setting, the majority of opponents would go for the bonus.

Again this topic is for discussing the creation of Tac Net rules that will actually make Deckers useful. Keep this up and I report you. Your comments are off topic.

Well, I can see a couple of challenges here: First, ideally the bonuses shouldn't tread the same ground as the Leadership bonuses, but something like a teamwork test to team members defensive rolls as an interrupt would be interesting.

i would treat Tac net rules with others as leaders as giving bonus dice to leadership same as teamwork rules do.

Creating a feedback situation between the two isn't a bad idea, but a tacnet should have bonuses distinct from that (that way, you don't get into a situation where the presence of one diminishes the value of the other). Bonuses to Perception, indirect fire, defense... There's a lot of space to work with there.

Ok, yes leadership does give initiative bonuses. What I was looking at with tacnet is honestly pretty similar to that, except the reasoning is that by the decker feeding purtinat info to the team in real time they would be able to react faster and more efficiently to changing situations.

Now while I do like the idea of a tacnet, I don't belive it really solves the issue of most wireless bonuses being illogical or not worth having wireless. i.e. smuggling or fingertip compartments being wireless to remove things as a free action. You shouldn't broadcast that you have a smuggling compartment. Needing wireless to tell what your air tank is at even if you have cyber eyes and DNI. The biggest problem that I see with the wireless thing is how much would I actually miss the bonuses if I didn't have them. If it would cripple me then thats pretty stupid. Why would I have a piece of cyberware that is only functional via internet. Thats like when I was on a submarine and wanted to play SCII but no.... Bioware says i need a fucking internet conection (nerd rage). But the problem that we really have with wireless bonuses is that most of them you can fully function without, and turning them off is unlikely to be a real handicap in a fight or any other situation.

Those are separate issues, and I think that they should all be looked at on an individual scale. Now as far as a tacnet goes, it should have risk/reward that would suite a combat situation. What happens if a hacker can infiltrate your Tacnet? what happens if you get bad info, If a decker is wirelessly connected to every piece of gear that you have and some one drops the Tacnet, what happens to all that gear? does it just return to a normal function, or would much of it have a chance that it needs to "reboot"

I agree.

I think Tacnets should be versatile. They should also provide overwatch. Giving the leader better info to base his tactics on. Give the Decker small unit tactics and they can be a back up/alt tactician.

Have a second decker and they can hack the opposition Tacnet and feed it's data into your tacnet. Giving you even better data.

How would you handle
Perception

Indirect Fire

Defense

tactical maneuvering(IE flanking etc.)

How different sensor systems feed into the tacnet.

How do riggers and drones feed into and recieve info from the tacnet.

how do the Street samurai pick up and give info to the net?

How do your magical types feed in info and pull out info?



Hacking a tacnet

Deckers defending their tacnet

Deckers attacking a tacnet

What can be done with a compromised tacnet

Anything I have not thought of?

or the whole Group of Runners that tried to infiltrate a Megacorp and got bricked from a dozen Corpdeckers & another Dozen Agents/ICs.

BtT
A Decker could write/program Agents to protect each TacNet Member

With a dozen Dances
Medicineman

I Disagree... They did not use Tacnets because they were trying to ADD ADDITIONAL vulnerabilities that the Decker could screw with. A Task that was approached, and executed, poorly.

I was going to make "This thread, only better" basically. Better as in clearly establishing mission parameters and design goals up front. Maybe I still will. Anyway:

Design Goal:

* Give deckers/hackers "hacking" action options in combat that can have just as meaningful an effect on an enemy combatant as shooting them with a gun or hitting them with a spell, and can be used on any enemy combatant that is at all reliant on technology.

Without the up-front agreement to that design goal, I don't see a productive discussion happening. Because some people just hate wireless bonuses, but other people also hate the idea of hackers being able to "hack" other characters in combat with the same effectiveness as firing an Ares Predator, casting a lightning bolt, casting control thoughts, casting trid phantasm, and so on. I will gladly discuss alternatives to meet the above design goal with people who hate wireless bonuses (not that such a discussion will result in anything official), but people in the latter group have no place in this discussion, and I'm not willing to let them in the doors, so to speak. People who hate wireless bonuses might be entirely reasonable people, but as far as I'm concerned, people who hate the idea of a hacker "hacking" a group of characters via their tacnet as efficiently as a mage can cast chaotic world cannot be reasoned with. They are not interested in playing the Shadowrun I love. They want to play MagicRun with some samurai tacked on.

I am very interested in "the tacnet rules they should have used", especially if those rules allow you as a hacker to compromise a TacNet, create false images and AROs, erase yourself from someone's vision or shut down their eyes entirely, etcetera. But before we can discuss "the tacnet rules they should have used" we (and by we I actually mean you in this case) need to come to a consensus on design goals.

Problem is - I can turn off my wireless, run dark, and the Decker is completely unable to affect me in combat in the way that the above design goal was implemented. The fact that the current online bonuses are haphazard and mostly unnecessary makes it even worse. Now, they the bonuses had been thought out better, and actually made some sense, this topic would never have exploded as it did.

I want the bonuses to be good enough that not running one would be silly. Reliable enough that people trust what they say. Yet hackable enough that good deckers can hack them and wreak havoc. I want deckers to be able to defend them. The Bonuses should be easy for the GM to flip to disads when a tacnet is compromised. A tacnet should not be a GM book keeping nightmare.

So nothing?

As I see it, the biggest failure of the design goal is that it only gives the decker something to do if the opposition has cyberware. The decker is still SOL in a plotline where the main threat is an insect spirit hive, a street gang, a NAN tribe that eschews cyberware, vampires, paranormal critters...

Not every run is against a corporate installation.

The second biggest problem I can see is that the setting makes it very clear that there are hostile deckers that are not only able to do the same to PCs, but would be actively encouraged to do so by their superiors. So while the benefit to a PC decker is situational, the threat to PCs with cyberware is constant.

It seems to me that the goal should have been something that gave a decker more options regardless of the type of opposition, without making cyberware a less optimal choice for players.

I can only think of a couple of options here, but each has drawbacks:

1) There are no wireless bonuses, but a good decker can provide equivalent benefits by sourcing feeds from the matrix that current wireless bonuses assume the devices can locate, interpret and incorporate on their own.
Main issues: Passive buff role (cf D&D Bards), only applies if a member of your team uses cyberware (which sucks if you have a mage, and adept, a technomancer and a high-essence face).

2) In a world where built in obsolescence is a product feature, have plenty of abandonware still around that is functional, so that even the have-nots can scavenge a couple of secondhand turrets, most corners have cameras( even if the networks are not always monitored), and even the sewers have decommissioned-but-not-deconstructed 'vermin control measures'. Give the GMs lots and lots of suggestions to ensure that no matter where a fight goes down, there is always, always something in the environment that a decker can turn to their advantage.
Main issue: More work for the GM, requires more imagination/suspension of disbelief in some environments.

Neither of these are great ideas, but hopefully they illustrate the sort of thing I'm talking about - an option that is always available no matter who you're teamed with and what sort of opposition you are up against.

This is not true. In order to be hacker-immune, the enemy in question would have to eschew ALL tech or go completely EM-dark. Para-critters would be an issue for this, but as for the rest (insects might have some of the flesh or hybrid forms using gear, for example)... It is true that the hacker's contribution gets less substantive as the enemy gets less tech-sophisticated, but that's an issue that will ALWAYS exist for options that involve the hacker doing things TO the enemy, which is part of the design goal Neurosis outlined.

And deckers actually on site with the security response would be rare.

I'd like to know what the SOP is for SWAT and Corporate High Threat Response teams.
What gear and tactics do they use to keep from having their cyberware or gear hacked?
I figure it would be close to military SOP.

Also 30 seconds of Jamming will keep most hackers from functioning unless they jack in to a hardline.
And even then they are not going to be hacking any of the enemies cyberware or gear.

My modest proposal, for a simple system:

- We assume that as soon as there's a connection, the hacker can exploit it (no matter if it's supposed to be one way only, or if it's only supposed to broadcast one kind of signal and stuff like that, there's always a security hole somewhere)
- Each character decides for a set of basic rules for the most common use cases (like "I have a connection to share my sensor feeds with my team" or "my dermal plating has no external connection") and chooses a "paranoia" rating for the rest, from 0 (completely open) to 6 (completely closed).
- Every time the character wants to do something that would require an external connection (sharing the data from one of his sensor (from the cyber-eyes to the biomonitor), letting one of his teammate control his cyberarm or his injector, etc), if that's not part of this preset list he rolls a dice. If the result is more than the paranoia rating, it's possible. If it's lower, he can't do it unless he lowers his paranoia rating (simple action, due to the need for a secure validation mechanism that can't be done in an auto action).
- Likewise, when someone wants to hack a piece of ware from that character, he finds a reason why it could have a connection, then do the same test to check if the connection is indeed open or not.

I'd also add that a hacker's combat actions could be done on the environment rather than on the characters: switching the lights on or off, getting the maintenance drone in the way of the opposition, opening and closing doors, etc.

The existing system covers for a lot of that, if you're clever - like bricking a lock so that you can't be followed.

That is what I like about the tacnet idea. You could be buffing your team when the opposition has nothing to hack. Making your team work more efficiently instead of debuffing the enemy tacnet.

can a simsense rig allow others to see what you see astrally? because that would be something cool a magic character can contribute to the tacnet allowing the leader to coordinate the magic resources. A tacnet should be able to be its own self contained network and operate regardless of whether there is a matrix to connect to.

I like the wireless bonus rules, I'm very glad they were introduced. They are just a way of getting a player to make a meaningful choice about more bonus at the risk of that gear being hacked. Deckers have plenty they can do anyway even without these wireless bonuses, but it's nice to try and encourage more options/risks for all concerned.

As for tacnet rules, doubtless they will appear in a splatbook soon. In the meantime PCs can have an informal tacnet anyway with their commlinks and other bits and pieces linked, and the DM can make on the spot rulings about what bonuses/penalties might flow from that.

then why are you posting here? Go to the other threads on the wireless bonuses and why they suck. This is not the topic for that discussion. this is the topic for coming up with tacnet rules.

"We assume that as soon as there's a connection, the hacker can exploit it (no matter if it's supposed to be one way only, or if it's only supposed to broadcast one kind of signal and stuff like that, there's always a security hole somewhere)"

Umm, No. At least on the fly during combat.

Yes there are always security holes somewhere, no you can't find it in 20 seconds while being shot at.
Lets give the GM a few things to make the decker/technomancer work for it.

I was hoping to get some of this filled in. any thoughts?

Shadow most likely because I don't like making up house rules til I've had a chance to play with the existent rules and figure out what is good/bad/ugly. I've only seen a glimpse of the rulebook a few times on friends pads.


But here is what I'd focus on.

The rules for tacnets in unwired are more or less a slapdash affair as well. It basically comes down to GM discretion for a lot of poorly worded bits & mechanics. What exactly qualifies for drones is ambiguous for example. Even the list of 'benefits' gives a big list of them... then tells the GM to pick the ones he thinks are apt. While the powergamers take this to mean any and all of them (causing another source of argument).


Rather than a generic monster bonus.

Replace the 'matrix bonuses' with more meaningful line item tacnet bonuses I'd say. Don't make tacnets some monstrous add on... but tightly integrate them into the core rules.


Give a reason why these devices are operating and talking to the group. Give the decker/face/somenoe a prime role in operating it. Example: if sensors are subsctibed (and their icon shows up in the matrix) they could be used to mark a target giving a dice bonus due to the enhanced target lock-on. Same goes for things like the smartguns... without a net... they give accuracy bonus... with access to the net they give their dice bonus as well.


Another idea is to have the tacnet have a 'pool' of dice. It's operator controls. By doing some actions he can add more dice. By doing others he can hand-out one time dice bonuses to other players/members of the group. You could similarly assign a point value to subscribing devices for these kinds of actions.

EG: subscribing the internal air tank allows tacnet members to look-up the air status of that member (he should know his own status without this! stupid matrix bonus rules!). it could also give say a minor 1 point bonus towards group coordination or situational awareness.


An example of different kinds of pools I can think of. offensive (smartguns, etc.), sensors (perception, surprise..), group status (health monitors, cyberware status, etc.). That's probably a good first cut. Offensive pool is pretty straight forward hand it out on offense. Sensors... again mostly for perception type stuff. Group status... help with things like first-aid tests. Like the last one not all of them need be or should be combat related.


A good example... UWB radar... you'd need to subscribe it to a tacnet in order to give others it's targetting bonuses through walls and the like.

Another problem which crops up... now exactly does a decker interact with an enemy tacnet or enhance the operation of his own? (Half the assumption i make is that there will be two primary characters operating this... the decker, and the face. since if the hacker needs things to do in combat, so should the face and i'm not sold on the 'leadership' skill).

I'm still thinking of something that's more interesting than a flat DP bonus, and more creative than just 'send each other AROs'. Give me some time!

Arrggg....I want to ask legitimate questions, but I think I should just avoid Dumpshock for the new few months until this stuff cools down.

No... go kick your muse and produce

Just make sure your ideas don't fall into the "D&D4 bonuses that are pure gamist crap" category (I'm looking at you, Leadership skill!)

This gives me an idea. How about: There's a common pool for the TacNet. Each device subscribed to a TacNet (provided they can be subscribed, so batons don't contribute but smartlinks do) brings 1 extra die to that pool. This pool refreshes every combat turn. Whenever they choose to, characters can withdraw one or two dice from that pool for a single action or reaction (never more than two dice).

This makes TacNets useful while keeping them abstract and relatively simple, and encourages the subscription of more devices (although this would require a list of devices that can contribute to a TacNet).
This also makes limits more relevant, by increasing the potential dice pool by 2.


Your opinion?

This sounds good... then hacking the tacnet is more about severing connections to it rather than bricking devices (which I abhor). The hacker disconnects your cybereyes from it reducing the pool by 4. The player Hacker tries to reconnect but the enemy hacker is throwing up White Noise or other interference, then they can duke it out.

Yeah, Bricking Devices is terribad. And the arguments that the devs/freelancers have used still do not stand up, as the Slang Terminology [for that word] in the Book [yes, right there in the booik itself] describes actual destruction of the device as what it means. What a horrible mess this is.

I've got a few thoughts bouncing around, nothing concrete yet, but I figured I'd share some of what I've thought of so far.

First, I like the whole temporarily disabling devices thing. Hacking gear and 'ware is all good and fine. However, having separate bonuses for every action a hacker might take is fiddly and annoying, and I prefer simplicity.

Secondly, tacnets are cool, but not a solution to the entire issue. Flat DP bonuses are sort of boring. Not that they aren't useful or anything, but they are boring.

Having said that, the wireless bonuses should give you a benefit to an action. Since actions, in game, take dice, bonus DP is probably somewhat necessary, but hacking a tacnet and knocking off DP bonuses should provide a distinct and clear advantage - if it doesn't, and you're only taking off a hit or so, then people will use tacnets for additional support, but not be entirely inconvenienced when you hack it.

What tacnets should do, in my opinion, is not so much provide a DP bonus, but provide better wireless security, something beyond 'slave everything to the decker and hope he doesn't sell you out in the process.'

I haven't quite figured out exactly how to do that, but hopefully this'll provide some food for thought.

My proposal for the TacNet isn't a straight bonus to dice, it's a shared dicepool that adds a layer of team-based resource management. I'm also thinking of making the maximum dice withdrawal 2 for character with an external TacNet client (so, someone with an external commlink) and 3 for an internal one (a TacNet client running on an implanted commlink), to give an extra bonus to cyberware-oriented sammies.

I don't link bricking either, but I do think more vulnerability than just "severing connection to the TacNet" is a good thing - so I could add this: if a hacker gets marks on the TacNet or on a device, he can use a "Control Device" action to lower the limit for any action involving that device by 2. So for instance, hacking cybereyes this way would lower the limit for perception and shooting rolls by 2.