Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Decking
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Community Projects
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
sanctusmortis
Hmmm... good idea. Will do.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
Beyond Black (I think it's UV IC, but I'm not sure... well, you know what's coming next,): Agents. cool.gif

sounds like a SK to me, and agent smith could be a SK pulling a deus wink.gif
Eyeless Blond
Decking utilities list/summary. Let me know if I got this right or wrong:


Operational Utilities (organized by ACIFS subsystem or "Other" if none applies). A * means the utility has special uses in addition to operating on a specific subsystem. Followed by multiplier:

-Access
Deception 2

-Control
Analyze* 3
Inject* ??? (Suggest 3)
Redirect 2
Validate 4

-Index
Browse 1 (Suggest change to 2?)
Scanner 3 (Suggest change to 2?)

-Files
Read/Write 2

-Slave
Spoof 3
Commlink* 1 (Suggest change to 2-4 due to Track function being added?)

-Special or None
Encrypt 1
Decrypt 1
Purge 2
Sniffer 3


Offensive utilities:
--Unchanged from original SR3. Attack utils are confirmed to use decker skill for "attack" roll.

Defensive utilities:
--Unchanged from original SR3.

Special utilities:
--Unchanged, but for the following exceptions:
-Guardian is gone.
-Link utilities are gone; rolled into hardware.
-Compressor is gone; rolled into hardware?
-Sleaze is dropped: Detection Factor is now solely the purview of the Masking persona chip.

Note btw this only leaves three programs left in this category: Counterfit, Track, and Battletac Matrixlink. If we can rid ourselves of these we can eliminate this field entirely; should we?

Frames:
--Unchanged from original SR3
Eyeless Blond
Anothe thing that needs mentioning: under the current implementation tally is held by the host and follows deckers amongst security-linked systems, but not elsewhere. Tally is equal to the tally generated by all deckers on the host. In practise this means that for single deckers tally accumulates normally, except that basically nothing you do on an RTG follows you to an LTG.

One possible implication of this is that people will sit around and hop from RTG to RTG all day long, Redirect Datatrail-ing until it is literally impossible to trace them. I actually don't particularly like the way this is implemented in the first place, first off because it doesn't affect the Track utility and second because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So, I propose thus: instead of adding to the TN for the Hunt cycle, every successful Redirect Datatrail operation instead adds 1 per net success to the Location cycle of any trace IC that locks onto you afterward. This seems to jive better with how traces and redirecting datatrails actually works; redirection just staves off the inevitable rather than preventing the IC from getting a lock on you in the first place. Paranoid deckers will still jump around and redirect all day, but now no matter how much they do traces still have the ability to find them; it'll just take awhile.

For reference Trace IC is on p. 104 of Matrix and Redirect Datatrail is on p. 100 of the same book.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
Operational Utilities (organized by ACIFS subsystem or "Other" if none applies). A * means the utility has special uses in addition to operating on a specific subsystem. Followed by multiplier:

-Access
Deception 2

Correct.
QUOTE
-Control
Analyze* 3
Inject* ??? (Suggest 3)
Redirect 2
Validate 4

All correct, and your suggested multiplier for Inject is what I've tentatively decided on myself.
QUOTE
-Index
Browse 1 (Suggest change to 2?)
Scanner 3 (Suggest change to 2?)

Correct. I agree with your suggestion for Browse's multiplier, what's your thinking with regard to Scanner?
QUOTE
-Files
Read/Write 2

Correct.
QUOTE
-Slave
Spoof 3
Commlink* 1 (Suggest change to 2-4 due to Track function being added?)

Good call. Tentatively change to 2, we'll see how powerful it is in practice.
QUOTE
-Special or None
Encrypt 1
Decrypt 1
Purge 2
Sniffer 3

Correct.
QUOTE
Offensive utilities:
--Unchanged from original SR3. Attack utils are confirmed to use decker skill for "attack" roll.

Correct.
QUOTE
Defensive utilities:
--Unchanged from original SR3.

Correct.
QUOTE
Special utilities:
--Unchanged, but for the following exceptions:
-Guardian is gone.
-Link utilities are gone; rolled into hardware.
-Compressor is gone; rolled into hardware?
-Sleaze is dropped: Detection Factor is now solely the purview of the Masking persona chip.

Correct. As a side-effect of this, Modes (especially Masking Mode) are dropped from the game until a more detailed analysis of them can be done.
QUOTE
Note btw this only leaves three programs left in this category: Counterfit, Track, and Battletac Matrixlink. If we can rid ourselves of these we can eliminate this field entirely; should we?

It'd be nice, and Counterfeit and Track would be easy enough to roll elsewhere, but where does BattleTac MatrixLink go?
QUOTE
Frames:
--Unchanged from original SR3

Correct.

Regarding traces/redirects, I like that idea—it definitely jibes much more closely with reality, is more balanced, and brings back memories of Uplink. Unless/until reason can be shown why this doesn't work or is overly complicated, let it be so.

~J
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE
-Index
Browse 1 (Suggest change to 2?)
Scanner 3 (Suggest change to 2?)
Correct. I agree with your suggestion for Browse's multiplier, what's your thinking with regard to Scanner?
Mostly that it's not really "cool" enough, I guess? smile.gif Um, I guess it just doesn't sound any more powerful than Browse, really, and comes into play about as often.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Special utilities:
--Unchanged, but for the following exceptions:
-Guardian is gone.
-Link utilities are gone; rolled into hardware.
-Compressor is gone; rolled into hardware?
-Sleaze is dropped: Detection Factor is now solely the purview of the Masking persona chip.
Correct. As a side-effect of this, Modes (especially Masking Mode) are dropped from the game until a more detailed analysis of them can be done.
How's this for a fix: instead of just raising the Mode on the high end by .5x, you instead raise the high end by the same amount you lowered the loow end? For example, say you have a Bod 3 Masking 6 deck: you can lower the Bod by 1 (.5X rating) in order to raise Masking by 1, to end up with Bod 2 Masking 7. Under the old rules it would have been Bod 2 Masking 9, so I'd say that work out.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Note btw this only leaves three programs left in this category: Counterfit, Track, and Battletac Matrixlink. If we can rid ourselves of these we can eliminate this field entirely; should we?
It'd be nice, and Counterfeit and Track would be easy enough to roll elsewhere, but where does BattleTac MatrixLink go?

Track I guess is an Attack program, as it's basically White IC-in-a-box, Counterfit would be an Operational utility, and Battletac... call it Defensive utility for now? It's about as defensive as Medic is, anyway.
Kagetenshi
Fair enough. For the moment, let it be so.

Regarding modes: still seems to allow Masking to be brought too high. Example:

Without hacking pool for DF rule:

Old rules: MPCP 6 deck, Sleaze 6, Masking 6, Evasion 3, Bod 3, Sensor 6. DF 6.

Masking Mode: Bod becomes 1 (or 2, I don't remember which way it rounds and it's immaterial for the moment), Masking becomes 9, DF becomes 7. Increase is comparatively minor.

New rules: MCPC 6 deck, Masking 6, Evasion 3, Bod 3, Sensor 6. DF 6.

Masking Mode: Sensor becomes 3, Masking becomes 9, DF becomes 9. Sure a more valuable attribute has taken a larger hit, but a dramatically more valuable increase in DF has occurred.

Both of the above, now with Hacking Pool for DF enabled (and assuming a math SPU+stats for at least 6 points of hacking pool, as we're breaking the high end right now):

Old Rules: DF 10

New Rules: DF 12

Without modes, either system: DF 9

I personally think just scrapping modes is the way to go, but I'm open to other opinions on it as usual.

~J
Eyeless Blond
Actually Detection Factor calculations round up (see p. 207), so under the the old rules you have DF 8 without HP and 11 with HP. The difference doesn't bemove greater until you get to higher Masking values (10+), and at that point the amount that you're giving up on your downside becomes much more significant.

Even in your case, note that my rule forces you to actually make a trade-off of 3 points from Sensors, rather than making the trivial "sacrifice" of exactly one point of Bod (the rounding rules end up with Bod 2 in your example btw.)
pragma
The loss of sleaze greatly improves the power of any changes in masking and has the potential to unbalance modes. Further, I don't think that they added a lot to the decker's game (requiring, as I recall, only a simple action to switch).
Eyeless Blond
Yes it does. The net effect is to increase the maximum DF by 1 over the old rule for every four total points of MPCP. So the difference is a whopping 1 until you get to MPCP 8; then it's a difference of 2 until MPCP 12; then it's 3 until an MPCP of 16, etc etc. This is why I made my additional proposal; the old ule allowed you to take, say, a Bod of 3, lower it by exactly one point, and getpotentially four or more points added to Masking. Under my proposed rule you have to give up at least as many persona points as you get, making the sacrifice itself more significant in the end.

It has the additional effect of bringing it more in line with the Otaku's Switch Echo, which under the current rules is decidedly much worse.
Shockwave_IIc
Eyeless Blond's idea of how to do it is better then the old, no doubt about but i do understand that now we have dropped Sleaze, any single thing that modifys Masking can be unbalancing.

So personally i think dropping the modes might just be the better way of doing things. Besides with the modes in play it will still a no-brainer to modify Masking. IMO
Eyeless Blond
Well that's true. If you don't have modes, however (which, btw, you'll note are not considered optional rules), your DF will be on average much lower than it was before this whole thing started. With an MPCP 6 we're talking a difference of 2; with MPCP 10+ we're talking a difference of 3 or more. I'm not sure I mind deckers getting a little harder to detect, but I'm not sure I like the idea of them being easier to detect; a starting character already has a hard time against anything more than a Green Easy-Average without extensive tweaks and customized decks at chargen.

But I'm sure that'll all come out during playtesting, so I'll temporarily rest my case.
Kagetenshi
Hacking Pool exchange for DF: this rule is no longer optional.

~J
hobgoblin
im trying to understand the idea for the tally rewrite here...

is it correct to read it so that the tally of a system will be the sum of the individual tallys of the people that access it?
Kagetenshi
That's pretty much correct.

~J
hobgoblin
hmm, so when a decker with high tally enters, everyone gets hit by whatever ice that new system tally should trigger?
Kagetenshi
That's correct. A good reason to try to keep scriptkiddies off the 'net. Note that that only applies if the decker accrued that tally on a linked host (probably one owned by the same company and devoted to the same general area of operations)

We'll have to add a note that tally accrued during login attempts doesn't kick in for everyone else until the attempt is successful. Or should it?

~J
hobgoblin
i dont think it should, why should the system care if someone have 2-3 failed logins and then goes away?

still, the changes dont fix the problem of a normal user getting nailed by a black ice just because they tryed to access a locked file at the wrong time...
pragma
Failed logons should be ignored until one is sucessful.

I think that the potential for other deckers to mess up your runs with their security tally makes planning for matrix runs much more critical and gives the GM some convenient plot hooks to pull on.

However, I agree that it does take some control of the situation from the decker, who already has precious little control at all.
Eyeless Blond
Hm. Well keep in mind that, since tally is shared only among security-linked systems, all the time, tally must therefore be the same for all security-linked systems, all the time. You can never actually have a high-tally decker suddenly logging on and jacking up the tally for everyone else. He'd have to already be there, racking up the tally on a security-linked system (another host on the same LTG or PLTG, for example), and so everyone else will be slowly feeling the pinch as Mr. Script-kiddie does his idiot thing. If he has the tally from somewhere else (say the linked RTG) and logs in his tally will reset because he's moved from another security-linked system.

As for the decker giving up control, decking a system when some idiot just happens to log in and jack up the tally is no different than being on a run when some idiot accidentally (or deliberately) pulls the fire alarm. Or being around when another, more inept, team is running the same building--or the one next door--at the same time. It's just bad luck; ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chances. smile.gif
Eyeless Blond
As I said, it's easier to think of the tally being held by the system, rather than by the individual decker. It even makes more sense, if you think about it: if it were actually possible to track individual icons and actually flag them for the number of illegal operations they perform, then why doesn't the host just immediately disconnect anyone whose tally is greater than 1? After all, tally only accumulates if the system catches an illegal operation; if it can also tag that back to a particular Icon why--other than it wouldn't be a fun game otherwise--would it still sit around allowing that Icon to continue screwing with it? Tally really makes more sense if it's more of a general system-wide awareness that somehting is going wrong, rather than the specific knowledge that *this* icon is screwing with the system.
hobgoblin
yea. if one thinks of the icon as a prosess that runs on thew host then one of the first things one would do to hide ones existance would be to continualy fork said prosess and then hand all the connections over to it. so the only real way of tracking the person would be thru the connection...

yes it makes more sense to have the system start to worry about general system state and the fire of ice to go look for likely sources of said problems...
Eyeless Blond
Yay, someone agrees with me who actually knows what a fork() is! I feel so proud. smile.gif
hobgoblin
well i have been interested in unix-style os's for some years now but only recently is starting to understand why...

and check out my new thread about plan9 reminding me of how a host may work under the hood wink.gif
Kagetenshi
sudo killall Eyeless\ Blond

~J
hobgoblin
heh, may be a posibility nyahnyah.gif
but then in the normal world one can allways protect the system by firewalling out a ip for some time. ie, protecting a system irl is much easyer then in sr if you notice the attack in action. so irl only stealth is the option...
Kagetenshi
The next thing to tackle is probably look at IC and see if anything needs to be altered or rebalanced, but that'll take some thinking to get started on. In the meantime, does anyone have suggestions for what we do with the Programming rules?

~J
hahnsoo
I hate to interject ideas from SR4, but there's one thing about SR4's system that struck me as "making the most sense". There are no individual pieces of IC, like Probe IC, Killer IC, whatever. IC is treated like a Frame or Agent (almost identically so). The type of IC that it functions as is determined by the program loadout it has. This makes so much more sense than the current SR3 system. To make a Black IC, you simply load an IC frame with Black Hammer. You can make a Trace + Black party IC by simply loading out an IC frame with a Track program and Black Hammer.

Thus, I propose some ideas, feel free to shoot them down:
1) When the tally reaches a point where it triggers an IC, then it is treated as if the decker has alerted the presence of that particular IC (entered a virtual node with a patrolling IC construct, whatever). Any tests made while that IC is active is treated like having an Probe IC with the rating of the IC adding to the System's tests. In effect, all IC are Probe IC.
2) IC are primarily determined by their program loadout. This would mean creating some special programs for the IC to use against the decker to simulate some of the more esoteric IC (like Tar Baby). Creating an IC is identical to kitting out an Agent, including rules to increase Initiative and such. In effect, IC are identical to Agents.
Kagetenshi
Hmm. Definitely an interesting change—I'll have to consider it more thoroughly when the painkillers have entirely left my system.

Thanks for mentioning it.

~J
hahnsoo
One more idea: You don't worry about attribute ratings until you start the run. You set the ratings when you start the run, and it takes a Complex Action to readjust your points. SR3 Core Book didn't care about how much persona programs cost, because it was built into the cost of MPCP. It would cut out a LOT of complexity while providing much flexibility for the player if you just ignore the "Matrix" Persona Program rules, and simply allow deckers (and otaku) to adjust their Persona on the fly with a Complex Action.

To recap: You would give the player an amount of Attribute points equal to MPCP x 3. At the start of their run, they can distribute the points as they see fit among the 4 attributes. When they choose to Change Deck Modes as a Complex Action, they can redistribute the points as they see fit among their attributes. No attribute can be higher than the MPCP.

Optional Rule: Overclocking - You can choose to increase a stat beyond its normal parameters (MPCP limit) by using 2 points for every point of Attribute above the MPCP. For example, a Masking of 9 on an MPCP of 7 would cost a total of 11 points. You can only overclock one stat, and each point above the MPCP that stat is overclocked removes one die from the Hacking Pool.

This mechanic is simpler, is not unbalancing, and I feel that it is in the spirit of the SR3 Decking rules.
Kagetenshi
The first idea is a very good one. I'd been houseruling it that way for so long that I didn't remember it wasn't canon.

(Otaku wouldn't be able to adjust, as their attributes are based on their mental attributes)

The "overclocking" optional rule I'm going to have to look at in more depth. My initial reaction is negative, but that may just be unfair association with the "modes" rules (which I dislike).

~J
ShadowDragon8685
Hey Kage, can you get on AIM? I'd like to use the revised system in my upcoming game, but the DM is having some reservations and confusions.
Kagetenshi
I was running a game at the time, but next time you've got him available give me a shout.

~J
ShadowDragon8685
Ahh, that figures. The DM is from here - it's Aku. I don't wanna give out his AIM without his permission, but you could PM him.


Hey, is there any way we could get a quick run-down update of all the new programs, I think you changed some modifiers?
sapphire_wyvern
I've been asked by Kagetenshi to post the reasons why I like SR4's Matrix system so very very much, for the benefit of deciding what to backport into SR3R. He was very graceful about it, considering the manner in which I suggested the adoption of SR4's principle ideas, so I'm very happy to oblige.

So then.

SR4 Matrix, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways....

1) There is no accounting of anything to the third or fourth significant figure. Let's face it, RPG attributes just don't need that kind of resolution. I like the fact that in SR4, provided you actually have a storage device, you're assumed to have sufficient capacity for any standard applications. Sure, the GM is free to rule that the complete specs and blueprints for the new arcology (or piece of 'ware or whatever) comprise too much data to fit on your standard comlink. That's pretty much what Storage Memory amounts to in SR3 anyway. May as well just ditch it. The rules still penalise you for overloading your hardware - but now you don't need a calculator to work out your exact load. This is sufficient.

2) As hahnsoo said, IC as Agents. The new Agent rules are simple enough that you can slap up Agent stats in your head without needing to perform any arithmetic at all. More importantly, making IC into a sub-class of Agent means that there need be many fewer special-case rules. In SR3, virtually every single piece of IC works using a different basic mechanic. Many can only be attacked using a special-case mechanic.

Another major benefit of making IC into an Agent is that decking tricks that work on Agents now work on IC. This includes spoofing commands to the IC so that it thinks you are its legitimate master. It's very cool to turn the two pieces of IC attacking you on each other, and it's something SR3's rules framework just can't support. (Of course if the only attack progs they have loaded are Black Hammer you're still proper fscked). Oh, and IC designs are now in the hands of the GM to a degree they weren't before... so you can create a single piece of IC that can trail a decker to his home host, hack it, steal all his personal contacts, email them back to the corp server, and then (try and) fry him next time he comes online. Of course the decker has plenty of opportunities to defend against this sort of thing.

3) The Agent rules in general are now much more usable. Every decker will have a few. The fact that they are also used for all other semi-autonomous electronic intelligences, like IC and drones, is icing on the cake. (For those who don't know, from a rules perspective, a drone is now essentially treated as an Agent with a physical body that can be possessed by the owning rigger).

4) Augmented Reality is very nice. It's entirely credible as a new way to interact with the Matrix and its connected devices - in fact I've known many players who couldn't believe that all Matrix and drone operations required you to be helpless and immobile. I still remember the puppy-dog eyes my rigger gave me when I told him that no, in order to have his drones follow him while he hiked through the hills, he would have to go "full immersion", give his drones their orders, and then essentially be completely cut off from interacting with them while he walked.

Furthermore, AR allows deckers to be much more "present" during an adventure. Imagine how much mage characters would suck in SR3 if the only way they could participate meaningfully in a run was to do astral quests. Now imagine that GMs, in an effort to get that character to participate more, regularly forced the mage to physically fight their way into a secure complex, overcome many challenges, be stealthy and so on... so that when they reach their final destination, they can then go on an astral quest! It just doesn't happen to mages. It shouldn't have to happen to deckers.

5) Drone simsense feeds are now compatible with Matrix simsense feeds. I don't know, really, why it took so long. If I were running a corp making security electronics I would have been aiming for this a long time ago! It means that the CCSS rules are now re-integrated back into the Matrix rules, which is how it should be IMO. Think about the craziness and complexity of the rules in SR3 for a decker trying to interface with a CCSS system, or vice versa. The game, and the setting, just don't need that kind of crud. It also means that drones often now have a full connection to the Matrix, allowing them to run ID checks and so on. It also makes hackable drones possible, without the evil of SR3's MIJI rules. Why have completely independant systems for spoofing input from a security camera in a building vs. a security camera in a drone?

6) All electronic devices with Matrix connections (which is most of them) now have a consistent set of stats for hacking. How do you resolve a hacking attack in SR3 vs any device *other* than a major corporate webserver? There's no rules framework to support it. For instance, suppose you want to hack someone's Telecom or Pocket Secretary in SR3? They certainly aren't Matrix hosts under SR3's rules framework. And of course, under SR3 rules, Deckers Need Not Apply when dealing with any device connected to a CCSS network - because apparently simsense is radically different when connected to a rigger or something. <shrug>

7) After watching Ghost In The Shell, I like the idea of hackable cyberware. Since it can relatively easily be prevented by turning off the communications capabilities of your 'ware, it's not likely to cause big problems for smart players. But it does add an amusing new side to the game.

8 ) The SR4 Matrix rules emphasize the fact that *everyone*, barring rare technophobes, uses the Matrix. The use of "full VR or nothing" in SR3 has a tendency to act against that. I think that's a bad thing in SR3. AR is basically taking the existence of Image Links and tortoise-mode access to the Matrix to its logical conclusion in a very cool and playable way. It should be in SR3R.

The fact is, in SR4 it's not actually a case of *rigging* being integrated into *hacking*. It's more a case of all the digital electronic devices, which naturally includes drones, being integrated into a single communications infrastructure. To me, this is Cool. Heck, the Vehicle Control Rig still exists. Riggers are still around.
Nyxll
QUOTE (sapphire_wyvern)
Now imagine that GMs, in an effort to get that character to participate more, regularly forced the mage to physically fight their way into a secure complex, overcome many challenges, be stealthy and so on... so that when they reach their final destination, they can then go on an astral quest!

Now that gives me some cool ideas for a run.

As a side note .... the decker doesn't have to be there ... only if there is a closed system.

It just makes things so much easier to penetrate a lan from the inside rather than the outside.
Velocity
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
One more idea: You don't worry about attribute ratings until you start the run. You set the ratings when you start the run, and it takes a Complex Action to readjust your points.
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
The first idea is a very good one. I'd been houseruling it that way for so long that I didn't remember it wasn't canon.

It isn't? It should be. smile.gif
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (sapphire_wyvern)
SR4 Matrix, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways....

Hmm. Interesting idea. In fact I think it's a terrific idea. Of course backporting all the SR4 Matrix/Rigging rules to SR3R is going to take a little doing. Certainly it's going to look a lot different here than it does there; most things in the '60s are still nano-wired, and there are no Commlinks yet. Further:

1) There's going to be major cross-compatability issues between SR3 and SR3R under this proposal. In fact there's going to be so much that needs changing any decker character's going to need a radical redesign to function here. The current rules require a redesign, but not nearly such a huge one.

2) You're killing Kag's "One game, many rulesets" holy cow, rather like the proposal to do away with Open Tests in the main thread. This proposal is going to draw out that RISG Vs. CISG (Reduced vs Complex Instruction Set Gaming) holy war, just as that proposal did.

That said, I think your arguments outweigh these counterarguments. It's gonna be a hell of a fight though.
Kagetenshi
Man, and I'm a RISC proponent too.

Some parts I like. Other parts not so much. I'll give a point-by-point opinion when I get back from class for people to add arguments/counterarguments to. A short list of what I like and don't like without too much detailed explanation in case anyone wants to start drawing up their arguments pro or con.

1) I don't like it, ish. I say "ish" because there is one thing that SR3 and prior has done that I really don't like, namely grossly inflated the sizes of what should be nearly plain text. While I still intend to keep track of things like program sizes, simsense feeds, audio/video/etc., I foresee most text-based items being nearly free.

2) I don't like the idea of IC being spoofable, but I need to examine my reasoning behind that before I put it up. The basic idea of IC-as-agent I'll have to look into, though it seems to me to be somewhat diverging from the idea of IC.

3) I'll have to look into this.

4) We'll be fleshing out what can and can't be done without going full-immersion. I'd like to keep it the best choice for Deckers (IMO Black IC has already been nerfed too much with cold ASIST), but likewise I'd like to have options (and sub-Captain's-Chair drone control) for those who choose not to go that route. I'll note that they're already available for drones under some interpretations of the rules. Some subset of AR made sane and incorporated into sunglasses or image links would be interesting to add, as well.

5) This I really don't like. Maybe I've just worked with real computers and computer equipment for too long, but it doesn't make sense to me that they'd be at all compatible—they're designed for fundamentally different purposes and needs.

6) As much as I'm not a fan of the idea of decking someone's pocket secretary (I'll note that telecoms are, however much I disagree with the decision, technically something like Blue-4 hosts according to Sprawl Survival Guide), I'll look into this.

7) IMO it has verisimilitude in GITS:SAC because the environment is already alien in a manner supporting extreme suspension of disbelief. I would be interested in developing new gear or 'ware that would provide some advantage to going wireless (sharing data from your cybereyes with your teammates, say) that would also be at risk for being decked, but wireless-by-default standard cyberware is out.

8) Frankly I think even with the full-VR-or-nothing it should be true in SR3—indeed, that as presented it is true. That said, we'll see where things go.

Either way, thanks for the feedback!

~J
Eyeless Blond
Heh, there's irony for you. biggrin.gif
Nyxll
While I agree that SR4 matrix does have some good points to it ... I think that it is inherently a little silly. There are a number of threads that are anti-wireless on the forums.

I like the idea of being able to sleeze ic and agents so that you can control, rather than crush then surpress.

I really was not fond of the commlink controlling everything. It seems very silly and counter productive to send a complete interpreted signal, rather than a smaller stream that gets redendered by a deck. I liked the idea of reality filters from sr2.

Please forgive me .... open tests??? does that just mean a success test? Maybe it is because I am still stuck in sr2, but I really do not mind them.
hahnsoo
I think there could be a way to integrate it all together, combining the lovely security tally/encounter table motif (which I think is significantly better than the "roll 1d6 and pray" method of alerts in SR4) while simplifying the rules without sacrificing detail. I have an idea in my head on how this could be done, as long as the abstraction of the model is sound (it might take a while to write up, though... probably a long-term project).

If you notice, most the of the decking in SR3 centers around "hack the monolithic big bad server" whereas most of the hacking in SR4 centers around "hack the itsy bitsy electronic device", even in full VR. If you assume that the portability of cyberdecks proceeds at a rate where the 2065 cyberdeck is about the size of the 2070 commlink, then you have a viable means for a decker to bring a non-cranial version of his cyberdeck around, performing virtually the same function as the 2070 commlink (except to access most devices, you'll probably need a fiberoptic cable). Or better yet, since the "hack the small device" typically only involves using Exploit (the SR3 equivalent would be Deception) and perhaps Attack (for Crashing devices), Edit, or Browse (data search), maybe you can run these programs on a modified pocket secretary or similar device. With enough memory in the computer, you can also just have an agent sitting in the pocket sec, and upload that into the device to do your dirty work.

Anyway, I'm proposing for "simple" hacking (hacking a device rather than a server), you assume ACIFS ratings of Rating * 2 across the board. You don't need a cyberdeck, just the appropriate programs (loaded onto a computer with sufficient memory), as your persona isn't involved. You roll a contest of Computer test vs. the Device's Rating * 2 - Program rating, with the device rolling its Rating vs. your program's rating to oppose. You need Deception to log into the device (or just the appropriate passkey if you have that information), Attack/Crash (whatever SR3R is using to crash systems) to crash the device, Browse to look for information, Read/Write to edit information, Spoof (or an appropriate control program) to control the device, etc. After a set amount of tally, the device sends out an alert (if it can) or simply shuts down, depending on the device... no IC or deckers. I'm getting vibes of deckers hacking into Vending Machines and messing up, thus sending an alert to Coca-Cola HQ for them to send their hired Coke goon squad...
Kagetenshi
Personally I assume that the portability of cyberdecks doesn't increase—what's in it for the manufacturers? It's already easily portable, while making it smaller decreases manual usability (minor) and increases ease of theft (much less minor).

~J
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 14 2005, 10:11 AM)
Personally I assume that the portability of cyberdecks doesn't increase—what's in it for the manufacturers? It's already easily portable, while making it smaller decreases manual usability (minor) and increases ease of theft (much less minor).

Cyberdecks are already restricted pieces of ware to begin with (EDIT: making the distinction between POS cyberterminals and cyberdecks designed for serious decking), and I agree with that assessment for commercial decks (which would be used by corp security or military, who don't want their ware stolen). A decker who builds his/her own would probably try to make their own personal deck convenient for themselves, which may or may not be the large keyboard-sized hunks in SR 2050. Especially if they don't need a keyboard at all... I'd say a personal deck can go at least as small as a modern slimline notebook by the year 2060 without requiring Cranial Cyberdeck parts and micronization.

Still, for the initial proposal I made above for simple hacking, using a cyberdeck would be MAJOR overkill. You would just need a computer with enough memory for your programs.
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
while making it smaller decreases manual usability (minor)

Isn't manual usuability a moot point for decks that are DNI control only?
Kagetenshi
DNI-only, sure. The reasons for a DNI-only deck are rather limited, though. Still, as I pointed out that's the much less significant part of my argument.

~J
Eyeless Blond
To which I counter: why then do Blackberrys exist? They're little bigger than your hand and, other than full-simsense decking, already do most of what an SR deck can do. They don't even have easy DNI input that you can plug into your brain and get a nifty virtual keyboard the size of your visual range for I/O; they've got little dinky keypads that you need toothpicks for fingers to touch-type on.

According to you though such a device would never be made. How about that. smile.gif
Eyeless Blond
As for hahnsoo's idea, it's certainly interesting, but as far as I know we're trying to simplify the decking rules, not layer over them with a second mechanic for decking someone's psec. smile.gif If we do this we really ought to have a unified way to deal with everything, just to make the project itself manageable; developing two systems will take twice as long.

Maybe we can somehow combine SR3's security sheaf with SR4's simplified decks?
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Sep 14 2005, 12:34 PM)
They're little bigger than your hand and, other than full-simsense decking, already do most of what an SR deck can do.

Yep! Other than full-simsense decking, and cracking encryption in seconds, and running a wide variety of powerful and expensive cracking utilities, and just about everything remotely important that decks do, a Blackberry will do it! Why didn't I think of that before.

As you may guess, I disagree with your reasoning there smile.gif

~J
RunnerPaul
That's a smokescreen and you know it.

The fact is, there's a popular product on the market today that despite the drawbacks of being harder to type on, and easier to steal, fills its niche very nicely. Why do people put up with those drawbacks? Because those drawbacks are countered by advantages such as less weight to carry around, and ease of storage (Laptop computers don't fit in pockets, I don't care how roomy your cargo pants are).

These advantages will be just as important in Shadowrun's time to the average cyberterminal consumer as they are today to the average Blackberry consumer, and as a consequence, the illegal cyberdeck industry, which builds on parts from the legitimate cyberterminal industry, will likely at least entertain the idea of adopting the same formfactors.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012