Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darrian Wolffe]

Have commentary or input on house rules?  Discuss it here!

[Darrian Wolffe]

Need input on these.  Please note that these are ONLY applicable to Hacking on the Fly.

2a) Detecting a Hacker who is Hacking on the Fly requires the Device to make an Analyze Rating + Firewall Rating Opposed Test vs the Hacker's Stealth Rating + Spoof Rating each time he takes a Hacking action.  This is a change from the previous Extended Analyze+Firewall (Stealth) Test mechanic.  This means that there is a –3 dice pool modifier if the command requires a security account and a –6 dice pool modifier if it requires an admin account (since it's an Opposed rather than an Extended Test).  This rule makes it more likely that the Hacker will not be found (since he can add Spoof to the dice pool), but will remove the possibility of effectively guaranteed hacking attempts on moderate-to-low-rating Devices.

OR

2b) Detecting a Hacker who is Hacking on the Fly requires the Device to make an Analyze Rating + Firewall Rating Extended Test vs the Hacker's Stealth Rating each time he takes a Hacking action.  This threshold to be detected is reduced by -1 if the hacker wants a Security Account, and by -2 if the Hacker wants an Admin account.  The hacker still suffers the normal threshold modifiers to his Hacking+Exploit test to Hack on the Fly if the command requires a security or admin account.  

OR

2c) Hacking on the Fly is done as normal, but if the System's (Analyze+Firewall)/2 is greater than the Hacker's Stealth Rating, the system will automatically detect the intruder.  Essentially, a Hacker with a Rating 4 Stealth Program is simply unable to break into a Rating 5 or 6 System on such short notice.  Get better gear, n00b.


.............

I'm looking at the maths behind hacking, and from what I can tell, if a decent Hacker (Hacking 5, Exploit 4, misc stuff to get a 12 dice pool) has a Rating 4 Stealth program, and is hacking on the fly, he's almost guaranteed to get through a SOTA Rating 6 System in 2 turns (12 dice pool, avg of 3 hits/turn, needs 6 hits).  Meanwhile, the system is unlikely to detect him (12 dice pool to detect, needs 4 hits, avg of 3/turn) before the Hacker manages to get in and reassure the system that he's supposed to be there.  For legwork, I can see this working, but for hacking on the fly, getting through a Rating 6 system this easily seems...a bit much.  A SOTA system should be FAR harder to breach on the fly than how the RAW supports.  Hell, Hacking's already simple enough to do via long-term legwork (take a day to break into a system, and you're almost guaranteed to do so).  What are people's thoughts on any of these ideas?  I'm rather partial to 2c, just for simplicity...

[agustaaquila]

well, 2C might seem simple, until you meet someone like my technomancer, who can quite realistically get 10+ stealth.  As one of your goals was to learn all of 4A, someone needs to point out that a slightly advanced techno would not be nervous to do anything, as the type of systems I get nervous about tend to be things like the central server of the CIA. 

I like B more than I like A.  I think the hack on the fly needs to be an extended test, as its the only way to get through to Techos that they can be spotted.  I think that A gives a too high dice pool to resist, and if something like an AI decides to hack you there is no way to detect them.

Yes, I recognize that things like e-ghosts and AIs might not be featured in our campaign, but I am just pointing out problems that could arrise under 4A.

[Knightofargh]

Honestly it's fine as it is in RAW.  Assuming a SOTA 6 firewall with a 6 analyze program loaded (average 4 hits) a hacker with a rating 6 stealth program will be detected on his second hack on the fly attempt since it's an extended test already per RAW.  Said hacker (4 hits average) will take an average of three rounds to get into that system with a security level account (Firewall+3).

Assuming time isn't an issue, the same hacker could probe over three hours and have a chance of getting in undetected.  Doing the napkin math, the node still has a 17.77% chance of detecting the intrusion.  It goes up to 36.47% with a rating 5 stealth program.  I wouldn't advise it with a rating 4 stealth, I'll leave it there.

The hack on the fly example above has a 6.77% chance of success on the second attempt and 56.24% on the third attempt for the hacker.  The node on the other hand has a 17.77% chance on the first round and an 86.17% chance on the second round, if the hacker needs a third round he's screwed since the node is all but guaranteed to notice him (99.24% probability).  Note that the same node with just its firewall of 6 will detect the hacker 58.78% of the time on the third hack on the fly attempt.

Technomancers are an edge case and only get truly rawtarded once you open up Unwired.  Mike's example only works if you abuse/choose a specific echo twice and have the TM spend 45 minutes each morning threading complex forms up to 12.  The proposed house rules unduly penalize hackers because TMs are awesome.

edit: As usual this is my opinion and combined with $1.50 at Speedway will get you a crappy pseudo-espresso drink.

[Knightofargh]

Second math post to keep this organized.  Below are the probabilities for the proposed house rules.

2a) This assumes the hacker has spoof loaded, I sure as hell don't most of the time unless I'm planning to spoof something.  The program limit is annoyingly low already.  In the case of 8-Bit, that would be 10 dice (average of 3 hits) versus the 12 our example system from above is throwing.  Probability wise the node will detect me 81.89% of the time.  Taking it down to a 3 firewall + 3 analyze it still will notice me 31.96% of the time.  Assuming a crap commlink in the Barrens with firewall2 + analyze 2 it still notices me 11.11% of the time.

2b) Let's assume the SOTA system and a need for a security account and my current PC.  That's a threshold of 4 that increments every time I do something.  Even if I get in, I'm detected by action 2 98.01% of the time.  My first action gets an alarm 60.69% of the time actually.  First action detection goes to 81.89% if I need an admin account.  Firewall 3 + analyze 3 drops first action detection with an admin account to 31.96%, second action goes to 81.89%.  The awesome TM with a stealth CF of 12 is at .05% first action, 25.38% second action, 81.03% third action and morgue by the fourth action.

2c) Doesn't change anything mathematically.

I don't like b at all, I enjoy character creation and all, but I don't want to be rolling a new PC weekly.  A isn't horrible, but it still means I'll be spending horrible amounts of time in cybercombat.  I don't love c, but if I had to choose one it would be that.  It doesn't rein in TMs at all though.

My overall preference is RAW.  I'm getting detected enough as it is.

[Darrian Wolffe]

OK then, how do we deal with the fact that Hacking  on the Fly is essentially an auto-success when dealing with the vast, VAST majority of systems (Rating 2s and 3s)?  Here's the thing:

Hacking when taking your time is generally an auto-success.  No issue here.  It's a matter of "how much time do you have?"  That's not something the rules should cover.

Hacking on the Fly into the exact same system is also very near an auto-success... against the stuff you'll need to Hack on the Fly into.  You don't generally HoTF into a MCT supercomputer - that's what the Taking your Time rules are for.  It's thematically appropriate for those systems to have Rating 5-6 everything.  HoTF ends up targeting stuff like cyberware, commlinks, or limited subsystems - all of which should have, generally, Rating 1-3s on pretty much everything, and barely any real countermeasures (IC or not).  The increased odds of being caught during a HotF don't matter, because the vast, VAST majority of your targets can't do anything to you anyway aside from try to terminate the connection.  So where's the downside here?  What am I missing?

Aside from me giving Everything Rating 4-6 stuff by default (which none of us want and just starts an arms race), how can we make it so that it's not essentially a risk-free autosuccess?  

(Please note, this isn't because of anything that has really happened in-game...I'm just finally getting a grasp on how the rules really work, and I'm see that, thematically, the rules don't match the world vision.)

[Darrian Wolffe]

It doesn't rein in TMs at all though.

My overall preference is RAW.  I'm getting detected enough as it is.

Assume, for a moment, that any limitations to Deckers are going to be mirrored in TMs - at a minimum.  I'm just not touching on them yet.


Secondarily, I think you've been detected once so far, and that was a fluke roll going against a fairly hard-core system.  I'm aware that "even once" is "too much" from a certain perspective, but let's think about what will better-represent the game universe.

[Knightofargh]

It doesn't rein in TMs at all though.

My overall preference is RAW.  I'm getting detected enough as it is.

Assume, for a moment, that any limitations to Deckers are going to be mirrored in TMs - at a minimum.  I'm just not touching on them yet.


Secondarily, I think you've been detected once so far, and that was a fluke roll going against a fairly hard-core system.  I'm aware that "even once" is "too much" from a certain perspective, but let's think about what will better-represent the game universe.

With (relatively) sub-par programs I've been detected six times that I'm aware of.  It's only been an issue once since everything else hasn't had IC running.  I'd estimate the firewalls on rating 4+ systems are getting me more than half the time, the systems just don't have IC which is luck.

By the numbers, and SR4 is a fairly predictable statistical model, making it easier for lower end systems to detect intrusions makes it exponentially harder to survive more difficult systems.  Pretty much every extra point of threshold makes TMs more awesome and penalizes the normal hacker because the hacker needs an extra three dice from a limited pool of upgrades, the TM just threads a more powerful CF.  Past rating 6 programs and rank 6 in the associated skill there isn't any way for a normal hacker to improve without getting into the terribly unbalancing elements from Unwired, and I don't think I want to deal with tracking 27 programs with various enhancements built in (optimized, ergonomic programs across the board to start.  At least that makes my programs worth ~ 8 instead of 6.  Note a TM can add any of those same options to the CF during the threading process.  In theory a Resonance 6 TM can rock out a 15 stealth for minimal drain, average is 3 boxes for that CF which can be healed by first aid since it is physical.)

Frankly hotf sucks if you have time to probe.  You are probably not getting in with a useful account without having to engage in cybercombat.  I'm also a big believer that no-body walks around with their cyberware broadcasting.  It's a 6th world fundamental to slave all of your 'ware and gear to your commlink.  Plus most 'ware should be signal 0 (regardless of what RAW says), if it isn't designed to broadcast/receive it shouldn't have a signal of more than 0.  That gives it PAN range without being a giant target.

[Darrian Wolffe]

OK then.  Consider these dead at the current time; we'll play it out with the RAW (modified by the clarifications to gear having low-rating Firewalls and whatnot posted over in the in-use HR thread, obviously) and see how it goes.  Thanks for the input!

Also, please feel free to take a look over there and pull anything back over here you'd like to discuss.  I know I've hit the Mages over the head with the nerfbat (messing with DVs), and Hackers got a bit more limited by tying their hits to stats in the same way as mages have.  Technomancers, once I figure out how the bastards work, will have a similar thing.  Most of the rules have been pulled from the SR4 forums, and they've been checked out over there as reasonably OK, but I'm always interested in more input.

[Darrian Wolffe]

Updated In-use House Rules Thread with info regarding splatbooks (Arsenal and Augmentation).

[SciFiEric]

Hey guys,

Rob, If I may make a suggestion on the hacking issue....

Blend both Pre-SR4 systems and some Cyberpunk stuff:

Reclassify systems by a dual rating: X/N

X is a descriptor (Green, Orange, Yellow, Red, Blue, Violet, etc) that denotes a general system quality.  This quality equates to the base dice pool the system uses for all tasks.

N is a number that denotes the base difficulty imposed on the hacker to do things in the system.  This affects the the hackers dice pools negatively, but is added to the systems security deckers ratings to directly oppose outsiders.

You can also make a list of things that happen when the hacker botches on dicerolls, keeping a cumulative count of the number of botched dice and what "goes off" at the level of "oops!"

-Just a suggestion of course.

-Eric

[Darrian Wolffe]

Updated in-use House Rules Thread: Dice Cap increased and info regarding splatbooks (Unwired) clarified.

[Darrian Wolffe]

GENERAL RULES

3) Spending and Burning Edge can have significantly more effects than those listed in the SR core book.  Examples include buying a "virtual" rank of a skill for one roll only, or having the Lone Star cop who just arrested you to recognize you from high school and let you off with a warning.  However, Edge costs may vary depending on what is asked for and the quality of snacks provided.

Can we as players get examples of what would be preferred snacking implements?

The PLAYERS can...  You?  I dunno.  When are you gonna join in?