Let's say that I'm throwing together a command and control van. I plan to hardwire a remote control deck into the back (as per R3). According to p. 308, BBB if I wanted to add a rating 5 ECCM to the deck it would cost me (5 * 15,000) 75k . Now, looking at p. 144, in the vehicle customization rules of R3, I can add rating 5 ECCM to the entire vehicle for only 50k .

What's the difference here? I've never really looked that hard at a rigger character. I can't believe how complex this stuff is.

i think the eccm for the vehicle only helps with sensory tests done using the vehicles sensors. the remote deck on the other hand just uses the vehicles extra energy to boost signal strength and maybe field a bigger antenna.

there are (sigh) two types of ECM and ECCM and encryption in SR3: regular, and rigger. rigger ECM, ECCM, and encryption works for normal communications--radios and stuff. rigger ECM, ECCM, and encryption only works for remote subscriber stuff--basically, anything that takes commands to a remote control deck. remote control decks use special radio waves that normal ECM, ECCM, and encryption can't affect. if this sounds retarded, it's because... well, it pretty much is.

in other words, getting ECCM for your vehicle will not give your remote deck any ECCM.

sensor/radio <-> eccm <-> rigger adaption <-> deck <-> rigger

drone <-> deck eccm <-> deck <-> rigger

makes kinda sense that vehicle eccm dont help a lot here.
it may allso be that the eccm for the vehicle isnt designed to clean up the data traffic on the rigger network (notice i typed data traffic not radio waves, there is a diffrence there).

allso, we are talking about modules specificaly for the deck. sounds to me like they need some sort of specialized interface.

still, this dont cover the funny little drone known as the hedgehog thats able to carry around deck modules in electronic ports. but then again, those modules are supposed to play nice with the remote control protocols.

and i think thats whats sr ecm and eccm is about. protocols. takeing out the enemys protocols without takeing out your own. why i think this? look at how the ether is getting saturated with signals. fi the signals go digital you can degrade em by adding in oddball data all over the place (or go ED and create a perfecty correct false echo. but thats basicly for sensors only). or if you dont care about that, go hot mike or similar and just blanket the area with noice.

There is a real difference between ECM designed to interrupt sensors and ECM designed to interrupt radio communications. And therefore between the ECCM to counter each of these.

The ECCM you put on a vehicle allows that vehicles sensors to detect ECM masked vehicles.

The ECCM you install on your deck allows you to better defeat jamming and electronic warfare (I think the rules for it are unclear this ECCM may have been replaced with the MIJI section in R3, witch is imposable to use because the first faze (locate frequency swapping algorithm) has no rules).

There arte actually 3 types of encripton in SR3.
File encryption used to protect files on the matrix (related to scramble IC)
Broadcast encryption used on communications radios *I think scrambled phones use this)
Rigger encryption which although superficially similar to other broadcast encryption is designed to efficiently encrypt a much larger amount of data whilst hiding its recognisable patterns that would otherwise make it easy to decrypt (that’s my excuse anyway)

The thing that confuses me is why you can not record an encrypted signal for later decryption.

Edward

Part of the reason may be that the encrypted transmission you are listening to may be employing frequency hopping or multiple frequencies as well. So you might be able to record 'part' of the transmission but it would be a bit like getting every Xth letter of a message, still not readable.

The MIJI section in R3 states that the first thing you need to do is learn to predict the frequency hopping algorithm, this would suggest that it can be done (there are several pages of rules on what you can do after you have the frequency hopping algorithm, including attempt to defeat the encryption) but nowhere have I found the rules to achieve this.

All your statement really means is that you need to crack the frequency hoping algorithm before you could record for latter decryption (it may also be necessary to record what frequencies where being used)

One reason may be that passive scanning of a rigger network doesn’t get you any useful information. If you record the signals you can’t place requests for data so you only get what the rigger did, this should be of some value but not as much as full infiltration, also this doesn’t make sense for radio coms.

Edward

mfb, sometimes i wonder why your interested in SR at all...

the deck is just using the power plant of the vehicle to give itself signal a strength boost. i does not use the com system of the vehicle in any way, form or shape.

that's exactly the problem. why shouldn't the remote deck be able to run its signal through the van's ECCM?

i play SR because the concept is neat, and because most of the rules are okay.

hell if i know. and if you want to houserule it, why not say that if said vehicle have eccm you can add it to the decks eccm. happy?

why things are like they are cant be answerd in canon here on the forum, only people that may know are those that wrote the rules...

i already know why they made this the way it is in SR. the rules are too insanely complex for anybody to be able to figure out the ramifications of being able to combine them with any other ruleset. there are two options, in that case: one, reduce the complexity of your rules to the point where you can work out most of the ramifications yourself; two, make the rules self-segregating, so that it's impossible to combine them. the developers chose option two.

the deck cant use the vans ECCM because the van doesn’t have a com system and thus doesn’t have and ECCM on its com system.

The ECCM the van has is to protect its sensors witch operates on a deferent set of frequencies to rigger control networks (and for good reason, sensors want echoes to know where things are, control signals don’t like echoes because it confuses the signal) the 2 systems are very different in means and function.

Edward