[Crunch]

From what I can tell, Boomstick, the idea generally has nothing to do with connection speed.

Indeed, rather with the utility of having a device designed to constantly access the matrix connected to the matrix.

If it makes you feel any better think of it as Ares version of the XBone.

[Boomstick]

From what I can tell, Boomstick, the idea generally has nothing to do with connection speed.

Well, yeah, but then I don't see why reaction enhancers can work together by wireless and not by any other connection mean.
And If I had something connected to my nervous system, even if not a hacker risking encounter with IC (yes, I know it changed, but I'll stick to this for now), I would not take the risk of it taking a virus. And no designer of a combat implant would, while it is not practical for the audience it is aimed at. Special ops? Army men? Indeed, they never want to do covert ops. SO I will design it the less efficient way for all uses, while it would be so simple to interface both things at brain level with nanowire or anything less open to mind rape and nose bleeding inducing nastiness, catatonia and paralysis (because what happen if wired reflexes are hacked? Don't just lose the bonuses I guess. If you can make happen actions for guns and so on, imagine what can be with neural implants...).

Indeed, rather with the utility of having a device designed to constantly access the matrix connected to the matrix.
If it makes you feel any better think of it as Ares version of the XBone.

Doesn't help so much:)
Actually, I would like the idea if it made sense. The example quoted of the Ares Alpha correcting trajectories from windspeed could justify need of Matrix access, but actually I am not sure there are precise windspeed meters any other locations where the runner is or where he is targeting at. But according to the rules it is no problem, if he has not enough noise to shut the device, and if he is connected to the Matrix.
And Satellites can give only tendancies. So it won't make sense a lot in some situations neither.

[Michael Chandra]

Given how the dicepool modifiers were really scaled back, reducing the bonuses of items isn't a big deal. The bonuses then returning if and only if, however... Well, all I can say is that I can't wait until I can check the rules and see how they work out in Missions.

[Aaron]

Well, a direct connection to your commlink would enable the device to do what it needs with the Matrix but really being well protected,
as spoofing without going through commlink would not be possible.
So that would defeat the purpose of new hackers...

I take it you haven't had a chance to read the book yet? It's something of a paradigm shift from previous editions, so it's hard to respond to your questions without rewriting the stuff in the book.

Also, how do you justify that your eyes, by going wireless, add Perception dices to the pool, when connected to Matrix and not when you have signal but are not linked to Matrix?

Most of how the New New Matrix works isn't in the book, and it may or may not be explained in a future book, but here's what I understand of it, for what it's worth. The Matrix was designed to be as safe to the user as walking in a AAA-security Downtown area. As such, devices on the Matrix utilize a lot of distributed computing, since it's "safe" to share, and data security can be easily done with proper encryption (thus the Firewall boosting program). When you have all of the devices within a click or so helping out, computing speeds increase exponentially.

[Baquette]

What you describe is a tactical network, not improved glasses.

MfG

[RHat]

That is not a tacnet.  A tacnet is feeds from multiple people put together opn a network with their own devices doing the computing.  Distributed computing is something ENTIRELY different.

[Baquette]

Receiving data from different, multiple, external sources to receive a perception bonus is the basic functions of tacnets in SR4.

So, yes, it would be nice if people could stop turn to a SR4 tacnet as an explanation for the SR5 online bonuses.

MfG

[RHat]

And a tacnet, when added, may continue to confer such a bonus - who knows.  But a tacnet is a lot more than just a perception bonus.

[Sichr]

Given the hate "always online" philosophy receives today, idn if microsoft pr have fingers in this (it is connected to licence, for conspiration sake ). Althought I am huge fan and I can even understand the advantages in most cases, some examples really give me creeps and will need really good explanation before I buy it.

[RHat]

Given the hate "always online" philosophy receives today, idn if microsoft pr have fingers in this (it is connected to licence, for conspiration sake ). Althought I am huge fan and I can even understand the advantages in most cases, some examples really give me creeps and will need really good explanation before I buy it.

Let's consider, for a second, that such hate only comes from a fairly small quarter.

[Sichr]

Hehe. E3: PS4 vs. XB1 So yes. Only from gamers. Oh. Wait!

[RHat]

Compare to the mainstream response to the X-Box One.  Microsoft will almost certainly get the demographics that they're going after, I have no doubt about that.  That demographic is simply not the "core gamer".

[Sichr]

"Cassual shadowrunner"

[bannockburn]

Let's consider, for a second, that such hate only comes from a fairly small quarter.

I'm curious where you get that assumption from.

I'm not saying that I have better numbers, but I can say at least that I have met no one yet who's totally on board with all those always online bonuses.
The general consensus in my environment is "would be nifty if it were a real choice, but the implementation feels shoehorned to the extreme".

That's my anecdotal evidence. Where's yours? Did you poll a significant number of people or is that just an opinion on a similar basis to mine?

[Ariketh]

Let's consider, for a second, that such hate only comes from a fairly small quarter.

I'm curious where you get that assumption from.

I'm not saying that I have better numbers, but I can say at least that I have met no one yet who's totally on board with all those always online bonuses.
The general consensus in my environment is "would be nifty if it were a real choice, but the implementation feels shoehorned to the extreme".

That's my anecdotal evidence. Where's yours? Did you poll a significant number of people or is that just an opinion on a similar basis to mine?

I'm going to say it was probably a representative answer based on the responses to it at Origins. I would be very surprised if Catalyst's reps at Origins didn't pay attention to the players' responses when they had players in front of them.

Incidentally, my anecdotal evidence has all been, "We'll see how it shakes out in play, but for now it looks fine."

-Ariketh