I know PCs aren't supposed to be able to design SKs. It's stated very clearly.
But we do know that it takes a team of a half dozen top programmers to do it, and that you can't use a programming suite. (see Matrix pg. 147)
We know they follow the same rules as smart frames and agents. In fact, the only game mechanical thing we don't know is the programming modifier, I assume because the designers are afraid (rightly so) that if you stat it, PCs will make it. Just like if you stat an IE, PCs will kill it.
But even so, if PC's are allowed to make a rating 14 Agent, then why not a rating 2 SK? I much prefer things to be impossible (or unfeasible) within the rules rather than impossible by fiat.
So c'mon, what would it be?
For quick reference, Smart Frames are 6, Agents 10, Black IC 12-25
I know there are a lot of choices in the poll; I'm hoping to see something bell-curve-ish.

edit: Lethal Black IC is multiplier 25, as per the Matrix errata pg 165.

I tell my players this: If you can roll a natural 200 with one die, you can make an SK.

The current record is 54.

I took a stab at around 40, but it could be anything really. Since it needs a team of expert programmers, that kinda multiplier should keep all of them busy quite a long time, as it's meant to. Plus SKs are very sophisticated and can potentially develop into AIs etc etc. So they need to be really damn complex to code.

All that being said, you're probably better off getting ridiculously good at programming and just coding up your own very high level agent instead. These have no limit on their rating, aren't gone forever if someone crashes them in cybercombat, are much much much cheaper to create and run than SKs, and at a high enough rating can be just about as effective, if not more so.

If there were rules for programming SKs, I doubt I'd use them. Not because it would be wrong for PCs to create them, just cos I'm not all that impressed with them rules-wise.

Another problem would be the hardware to run said SK.
You'd have to jack a few mainframes in order to run it.

Zeel De Mort: I agree with you that the multiplier should be high enough that, compared to an Agent, and for a single PC, designing an SK is a bad idea. But it's interesting to see exactly how bad, and how far they are out of a PC's league.

Fix-it: Indeed! At least a Red-10.

Those who vote 51+, please post a number.
I should've included that request in the poll.

erk! You caught me out...

I would say 75, altho I love the 200 number of Sabosect's.

I'd say 15. It's pretty low, true, but how many running deckers have total access to play on SOTA computer mainframes buried deep in the bowels of AAA corp HQ's for any signifigant amount of time?

LordHaHa

enough that i'd be uncomfortable with a number that low.

Hmm... I originally thought 70-80, but revise that up to 120-140. I'm going to have to think about it; I may need to revise that upwards again.

~J

Well, didn't canon deckers make something that became an "AI"? So why would it be imposable or for players to build the "final step" before an "AI"?

Canon has also had people take out a dragon using only an anti-aircraft gun. I don't know about you, but rather than just fly around in the sky dragons in my games are likely to fireball the guy shooting them.

While a multiplier of 140 seems ridiculous, I guess it's not that insane since with a crack team of a dozen or so programmers and a Red-10 host to program on they could probably put together a decent (rating 10 or so) SK in about two months. Which seems almost too short a time, but I suppose half the battle is getting all those people working for you and giving them a Red-10 host and a few months to work with.

However, I'd still stand by anything in the 40 ballpark, largely due to my lack of awe of SKs in a numbers/rules sense. Anything from 40-140 is fine though, that near enough for you?

Given that a modern OS can take years of development and testing, I see no reason why a SK should be faster to write and deploy, especially by only a dozen people. If the numbers really allow you to do it in two months, then at least triple the figure I named above.

~J

To be comparable with today's programming times, yes, the multiplier should be gigantic given the complexity of this and many other bits of code in the SR world. But I kinda like the idea of an elite corporate team being able to rush to produce an SK in only two months, if they have to.

Even then, this would be a team made up of absolutely world-class programmers, among the best there are, and all working a full day pretty much every day for two months straight, on top-class hardware with an exceptionally good programming environment.

Plus I just assume that software development has come a LONG way in 60 years and is much much faster as people can manipulate data a lot faster and computers are much better at assisting with the work, etc etc.

If someone tried to code a similar SK by themselves then, obviously, it would take more in the order of the two years you're looking for. Well out of reach for a PC, which is what most people want.

Third book of the Secrets of Power Trilogy? I forget the name, though.

~J

First book. Never Deal with a Dragon.

I would suspect that an SK is not a single program, but rather dozens of programs sharing data clumps that are themselves being compared by other programs in the SK to the thousands of possible outcomes of every action it could take. So, say 15 programs of the same rating as the the SK each with a multiplier of 15, and then a set of three master programs with multipliers of 30.

Related question:
Matrix pg 148.

Yeah, I agree that there is still a previous version in storage memory (hopefully). Just that specific one with all its knowledge and maybe even personality depending on how long ago it was backed up and what happened in between.

I am extrapolating that a decently complex task today will be a good guideline for the time required for an extremely complex task in sixty years.

~J