[Sichr]

Ok. So lets remove the feature lots of us like and want to use because there are people who are not able to keep track of their augments and powers.srsly? Or let those people talk to their GM so it wont be used.
@mirikon: not so sure that hacking ghost is still impossible. Based on fictions, to me it seems someone is quite capable of pupetmastering technomancers in GeMiTo.

[Mirikon]

"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.

Please cut the crap. Even without going to the extents Mara does, I've already shown how a Street Sam can, for no investment in skills and a small (compared to the cost of ware) investment in nuyen, protect themselves reasonably well from hackers taking over their ware during combat. If a hacker is in range of a street sam long enough to find the hidden node, hack in without triggering alerts, get through the encryption without triggering alerts, and get past the IC without triggering alerts, then wireless connections are not the sam's biggest problem.

Yes, the hacker has the chance to utterly bone sammies. Just like the sammy will utterly bone a mage in straight combat unless the mage gets the first shot, or the spirit will bone anyone who isn't awakened. And get a sammy within weapons range of the hacker, and the hacker's cooked as well. Every archetype has strengths and weaknesses. The Street Samurai's weakness is that ware can be hacked. Really, other than high force spirits and spells, that's the only thing sammies are weak to.

Ok. So lets remove the feature lots of us like and want to use because there are people who are not able to keep track of their augments and powers.srsly? Or let those people talk to their GM so it wont be used.
@mirikon: not so sure that hacking ghost is still impossible. Based on fictions, to me it seems someone is quite capable of pupetmastering technomancers in GeMiTo.

That will definitely be interesting to see if it is developed further.

[Carmody]

Here is what I would like to see in SR5 regarding cyberware hacking, as well as some related thoughs in response to what have been said so far:

I like the idea of hacking cyberware, but it must be far simplier than it is in SR4 (it is too complex for me), for example 1 opposed roll.
Furthermore, hacking cyberware shall not allow to do everything with the cyberware, here are a few exemples for you to understand my point:
   - a cyberarm, as I see it, has 2 main interfaces
      - a DNI, which controls the arm and is physically plugged to the brain, the only way to hack it is to hack the brain (i.e. it is not possible)
      - a wireless interface, used to monitor status and allow maintenance. It is used to do everything that a "natural arm" cannot do (to be read with an open mind, for example cyber blades would be controlled by the DNI, as for cat claws, the same for other cyber weapons) for example maintenance, diagnosis, download firmware update. This interface is hackable. A hacker would then be able to shut down the arm, report false status, etc...
   - a cybereye has the same 2 interfaces, however the wireless interface is able to do far more because all overlays are using this interface (the DNI is only used to control where the eye is looking and send the images) so a hacker shall be able to change all overlays, which can blind the user or making him see things that do not exist)

I also like the idea of having short-lasting actions (as detailed by someone above), using the assumption that the HW will eventually recover in a few seconds.

And to be "combat effective", one should have to invest in *gasp* combat skills. If they don't want to do that, then tough cookies.

Last, I do not think that all characters shall be able to take part in combat, but I would like that it is possible for players to ensure their character can play a role if they wish (and invest a little). This means that in order to do cyberware hacking, the hacker must spend some ressources specifically for that, it shall not come for free in the hacker package. These resources (or skills) can be considered "combat skills".

This will allow a player to have a hacker that can play a role in combat in hacker style at the cost of a few skills/softs/whatever is not part of the regular hacker package. You can compare that to a magician that can be effective in combat in a magician style: with combat spells.

[Sipowitz]

I wonder if the writers are reading these threads, and taking notes on what people are saying were issues with the
things being commented on in the current edition?

I would hope the people playtesting are diverse enough that they are able to voice this.

It is called "Commanding Voice." Yes, you have to tell them something that is not directly going to hurt them, and it has to be a one
word command that they can hear and understand.  Drop that on them, and tell them to "Retreat" or "Drop" (especially when there
is suppressive fire going on), and your Social Adept can dramatically impact a fight.

idk, suppressive fire has never been very 'suppressive' in SR.  It works on maybe the first couple of security ratings after that it isn't scary.

[KarmaInferno]

"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.

Why should it be tedious micro-management?

Hacker rolls attack, target resists, determine result. Since it was a combat hack and not a full bore network takeover, target's cyberdefenses recover immediately afterwards. If the hacker wants to do it again, he needs to make another attack roll.

Ideally, the hacker's attacks will NOT be simple damage or the like that the gunbunnies can do, but 'alternate' effects. Cause a cybered target to momentarily move out of cover, or be blinded briefly, or the like.

As for "everyone being useful in combat", this is NOT a setting consideration. This is a design consideration. When combat starts, you want the PLAYERS to all have something to do.

This is a maxim of game design. You do not create a system where a player might as well just leave the room and wait for the others to finish. You want everyone at the table participating.

The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.


-k

[Sipowitz]

Why should it be tedious micro-management?

Hacker rolls attack, target resists, determine result. Since it was a combat hack and not a full bore network takeover, target's cyberdefenses recover immediately afterwards. If the hacker wants to do it again, he needs to make another attack roll.

Ideally, the hacker's attacks will NOT be simple damage or the like that the gunbunnies can do, but 'alternate' effects. Cause a cybered target to momentarily move out of cover, or be blinded briefly, or the like.

As for "everyone being useful in combat", this is NOT a setting consideration. This is a design consideration. When combat starts, you want the PLAYERS to all have something to do.

This is a maxim of game design. You do not create a system where a player might as well just leave the room and wait for the others to finish. You want everyone at the table participating.

The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.


-k

Precisely.

Cyberware is not a requirement.  It is a choice. 

[Mirikon]

And it is a choice that should come with some corresponding dangers, just like how a hacker or mage can get brain fried in the course of doing their job. Doesn't even have to be damaging. Simple things, like editing the feed from cybereyes in real-time just as you would any camera, or commanding the cyberleg to go completely straight and rigid and stay that way, or cyberspurs to retract just before impact every time the sammy tries to use them. Things like that make the hacker a threat to the guy who can take an anti-tank round to the chest and keep going. How is that not a good thing?

[Wildcard]

The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.
-k

Combat monsters are usually useless during the rest of the game, for the most part. Seems a bit unfair to have hackers the only real 'class' able do be potent during every phase of the game without needing to broaden their skillsets much.

If it comes up that the hacker can do something useful during combat, awesome. Hack a passing car and ram it into the bad guys. I'm just not going to buy into a universe where the bad guys are leaps and bounds dumber then the party (Wireless cyber, gun turrets, personal vehicles, commlinks, etc.). It's not Shadowrun.

[emsquared]

Combat monsters are usually useless during the rest of the game, for the most part. Seems a bit unfair to have hackers the only real 'class' able do be potent during every phase of the game without needing to broaden their skillsets much.

Actually it's pretty easy to mix in a non-combat role into a combat monster; infiltration/B&E, facing (intimidation), leg-work roles like Data Search, etc. Also, Riggers, Faces and Magicians are usually potent during every phase of the game, no broadening needed at all, so it's not like it'd make Hackers some sort of uber-class.

[All4BigGuns]

"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.

Why should it be tedious micro-management?

Hacker rolls attack, target resists, determine result. Since it was a combat hack and not a full bore network takeover, target's cyberdefenses recover immediately afterwards. If the hacker wants to do it again, he needs to make another attack roll.

Ideally, the hacker's attacks will NOT be simple damage or the like that the gunbunnies can do, but 'alternate' effects. Cause a cybered target to momentarily move out of cover, or be blinded briefly, or the like.

As for "everyone being useful in combat", this is NOT a setting consideration. This is a design consideration. When combat starts, you want the PLAYERS to all have something to do.

This is a maxim of game design. You do not create a system where a player might as well just leave the room and wait for the others to finish. You want everyone at the table participating.

The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.


-k

The whole crux of their argument is that they want Hackers to be able to be just as good in the area of the Street Samurai's focus without investing the same amount of resources into the same skill set that the Street Sam did.

Instead of letting the Hacker use what skills they bought that let them rule pretty much every other situation in the game to take away what the Street Sam is good at, make the Hacker actually have to invest in combat skills--oh my God, what a horrid, horrid thought (apparently)--in order to contribute to combat. If the Hacker's player doesn't want to invest in those skills, well then he's chosen to make himself useless in combat.

[Wildcard]

Actually it's pretty easy to mix in a non-combat role into a combat monster; infiltration/B&E, facing (intimidation), leg-work roles like Data Search, etc. Also, Riggers, Faces and Magicians are usually potent during every phase of the game, no broadening needed at all, so it's not like it'd make Hackers some sort of uber-class.

Then they're no longer combat monsters. They're infiltrators, faces, etc. And with the new rules, Data search is going to be pretty difficult unless you bump your logic for *just* that.

I'll agree though that currently, a properly built mage can be effective in all aspects of the game. Obviously some will disagree with me, but I personally find that to be a problem. It's not that I mind a generalist, it's that I don't like a generalist that can also handle a third of the universe better then anyone else.

[emsquared]

Then they're no longer combat monsters. They're infiltrators, faces, etc. And with the new rules, Data search is going to be pretty difficult unless you bump your logic for *just* that.

Right. I guess it depends on how you define combat monster. If you define it as someone who purposely doesn't do anything other than combat, you can't then bemoan that they can't do anything else. But if you're just defining it as someone who is first and foremost geared towards melee and ranged combat, then there is still easily room to slap on an additional skill or two or four (Intimidate, Infiltration, Shadowing, Hardware, heck, even the various Piloting, etc.) that gives them purpose in non-combat situations. A combat monster could already have a high LOG for First Aid and Demolitions, easy enough to tack on Data Search. Even just being a BA looking MF who does nothing but stands behind your Face while he does whatever he does is a non-combat role and doesn't require anything other than combat skills - may not be very active, but still plenty of opportunity for the to RP and for them to serve a purpose. Again, point is, no PC should be useless during any phase of the game and Hackers aren't going to be a disbalanced uber-class no matter what they do to them (within reason, of course).

[Sipowitz]

Actually it's pretty easy to mix in a non-combat role into a combat monster; infiltration/B&E, facing (intimidation), leg-work roles like Data Search, etc. Also, Riggers, Faces and Magicians are usually potent during every phase of the game, no broadening needed at all, so it's not like it'd make Hackers some sort of uber-class.

Then they're no longer combat monsters. They're infiltrators, faces, etc. And with the new rules, Data search is going to be pretty difficult unless you bump your logic for *just* that.

I didn't realize that 'combat monster' forbade characters from having any other skills.

[All4BigGuns]

Right. I guess it depends on how you define combat monster. If you define it as someone who purposely doesn't do anything other than combat, you can't then bemoan that they can't do anything else.

This is exactly the problem. People want hackers to be able to do combat without spending points into other skills. The Street Sam and Face can't be effective in other areas without investing in those skills, so why should any other character type be able to?

...Hackers aren't going to be a disbalanced uber-class no matter what they do to them (within reason, of course).

By having cyber-ware being a liability like that, that is exactly what it makes the Hacker. He can already use his Matrix skills to get more information--and do it better--than the Face can with his contacts (unless you're talking the cheesy Pornomancer crap). He's already better at being undetected than the Infiltrator (not being on-site and not tripping alarms). The only thing the Hacker can't do already with his Matrix skills is deal with magical threats considering that he can already fight almost as good if not better than the Street Sam by using drones (while being in the safety of his comfy chair).

I didn't realize that 'combat monster' forbade characters from having any other skills.

"Combat Monster" is generally used to describe a combat-oriented character that can't do anything else.

[Ghoulfodder]

I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.

At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.

The more I think about it I kind of agree with All4bigguns on this.  Not every character type needs to be combat awesome and we don't need to cram every skill set into a combat role.  It kind of sucks to make a street sam if the hacker does as much in a fight but has a ton of other tricks.  And honestly I hate things like hacking cyber for the same reason I hate background count in 4e and adepts.  The less I have to fiddle with the better, rearranging what ware or powers are active is a pain.  They most likely have modifiers built into my character sheet and changing that up on the fly in the game just a pain in the ass.  Sure assign a penalty from background count or maybe some kind of electronic interference hack, but make it a consistent easy to track modifier and not something as tedious as figuring out what power no longer works etc.   

I don't mind as much of external gear gets hacked though if a hacker wants to help in combat more directly outside things like hacking comms they have drones to fall back on.

Except that hackers attacking their ware is one of the major balancing aspects against Street Samurai and other ware-heavy characters. Plus, it is a quintessential part of the Cyberpunk genre. You go around lopping off perfectly good pieces of yourself and putting machines where flesh ought to be, that's all well and good, but there's a price to pay, and I don't just mean nuyen. That's like saying it sucks to play a mage, and then have to deal with drain or background counts because that is a pain. That's a part of what it means to be a mage, so suck it up or play something different.

If you have massive ware, and aren't taking steps to protect yourself, then don't blame me if I go Laughing Man (not the Shadowland poster) on you. You shouldn't have replaced perfectly good eyes with cameras. Just be glad there isn't such a thing as ghost hacking (yet).

Again, my whole point is that it's just not worth the hassle to leave it in. Like I said, it's far too nebulous as to what can be accomplished, and also like I said, it's better to remove the option than it is to complicate the already highly complex Matrix rules defining it.

Not to mention that people keep ignoring the simple fact that not every single character type should 'have something to do' in every single situation. Different character types contribute in different situations, and that is just fine.

It's currently nebulous, open to abuse and badly thought out. Clarifying it so you have clear limits on what can be done and how is not more hassle than it's worth, because it provides (in theory) good rules for an integral part of the setting.

Something that is part of the feel of the game not working is not reason to throw it away. It's reason to fix it.