[KarmaInferno]

All this doesn't even begin to touch the really cheeseweasel stuff like daisy-chaining multiple commlinks and putting data bombs in every damn thing.

There's an inherent problem with hacking in SR. It is either childishly easy to crack systems or damn near impossible. There's not a whole lot in between. Any script kiddies who can push a button can crack into 90% of the systems out there in a matter of hours or even minutes at most. The remaining 10% are SO well protected even the best crackers have difficulty with them.

And the way defenses are set up in the rules, there's no good reason anyone would NOT have like 30 layers of stupidly hard defenses set up on every node in their systems. But for some reason most places have minimal security.

Back to the rigging yourself idea - why? The benefits are minimal, and the downside is significant - you potentially take damage TWICE every time you're hit, once from the actual damage and once from the hotsim feedback.


-k

[CanRay]

First part of my question answered, now, for the second?

[Redwulfe]

As to taking 5 actions, I outlined that.
Encryption doesn't take skill.  A R1 agent on a spare link can handle this for you.
Encrypt, is a simple action which includes setting and sending the encryption keys.  This is done once and applies to all subscribed channels which you decide it does in the same manner that Issuing a Command applies to whatever number of devices can receive that command.  It only needs to be done on one side of the connection.
Decrypt is a simple action which includes taking the encryption keys and applying them to the signal.  This is done once by each device on the receiving end.  It takes up a simple action.  If you are directly controlling this drone, it takes one of your actions.  The other simple action can be used to run an Analyze test, which is also important to catch hacks early.

I wasn't meaning 1 agent does all 5 actions, sorry I must have miss-posted or something. 1 agent encrypts its node and the transmission and then runs decrypt to be able to understand the transmission being sent and received. The other encrypts its nod and runs decrypt on the transmission to understand it as well, but does not need to run encryption on the transmission just his node. 5 simple actions between the two agents not one. On one of those ends you will have the opportunity to get in to the node as one of the agents is trying to encrypt the signal and run decrypt to understand the response and won't have the node encrypted until his next initiative pass. Finding out which one is doing which is probably a luck of the draw and it will only work if you roll good to get into the node on one roll and then crash either the node or the agent with cyber combat with your next pass before the node is encrypted. I still not the best way to defeat the rigger but that is not the point. The world balances the rigger as his encryption does not defeat what he would normally face on the run. wireless negation and signal attenuation.

To me this is a cool rigger that nows his stuff and is really hard for an enemy hacker to deal with but on the run he is very balanced and can be challenged without it overpowering the rest of the party. I would have no problem letting a rigger with this setup into my game.

Red

[Redwulfe]

I think Data bombing a node is ambiguous and would require GM interpretation. What is designated as authorized access. Hacking, in my definition, is using exploits to create an account whether it be a standard user account or Administrator one that gives you the ability to log on to a node. If you do this successfully a Data Bomb would not go off as you are accessing an account and are authorized to use that level of access. I would not deny my Players the ability to Hack into a system with a Data Bomb on it and then let them deal with the bomb. If the system detects you though then the bomb goes off. Others may rule it otherwise due to RAW but I would use RAI on this one otherwise every Node that you didn't want someone on would have a Data bomb and the game would not be fun for any hacker. the fact that that is not the case tells me it works more like what I have described here.

Red

[Wayfinder]

The simple answer to the original question is that rigging is a wireless connection and therefore is as vulnerable as any other wireless node. Once you go wireless you are now in the kingdom of the hacker. As many here have discussed there are many tricks to outwit either side but it boils down to a Matrix battle. As for the idea of game balance, specializing in one area always leaves you open to another. Thats why we discuss shadowrun Teams not single player superheros. The four M's: Magic, Matrix, Muscle, Machine forget one on a run and you're dead.

[Faradon]

As far as the cycling encryption goes.  That sounds great for a player trying to protect their drones and whanot, but do you (or your GM) then turn around and run all NPC drones the same way?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that application of the rules seems to make a good majority of drones near unhackable for a not very large investment.

[Redwulfe]

For me it would depend on the team if they could handle it then yes I would use it against them, If I feel they could not then never. My job as a GM is to make the game challenging, entertaining, and fun not impossible, frustrating and a death trap.

Red

[LonePaladin]

If the group expects to be dealing with a spider, this sort of thing is probably on the hacker's mind already. Any drone network that's part of a site's security may have this sort of wandering IC anyway, that's pretty standard for mid- to high-level Matrix security.

Keep in mind how often drone whisperers turn up as enemies (which, from what I've seen, is seldom). I'm going to increase this a little for my own game, 'cause the group's rigger actually has himself kitted out to be able to hijack drones, and he needs the chance to do so once in a while.

[Redwulfe]

That's a great point LonePaladin, if the groups hacker or rigger seems to want to face this challenge then it would seem legitimate to allow them to do so.

Red

[John Shull]

For me it would depend on the team if they could handle it then yes I would use it against them, If I feel they could not then never. My job as a GM is to make the game challenging, entertaining, and fun not impossible, frustrating and a death trap.

Red

Impossible is one of those words that I find hard to quantify in Shadowrun for my gamers.  Many times they would prefer to fail than run away from a challenge.  Gamers should get to see the edge of a cliff now and again to show them how big the world is and they are mortal.  Also they can be as hard to kill as mutant Roaches and just as likely to try skillwiring cliff diving as run away.   

[LonePaladin]

That's a mindset of gamers everywhere, regardless of the RPG being played; they don't like any circumstances that look like losing.

I'm glad that the SR rules have always addressed this phenomenon -- the "smarts" Karma award specifically mentions that it should be awarded if the runners realize that it's better to cut their losses and run. (If the players run into this sort of situation, and actually back away from it, I'd make this Karma award openly so they know they actually gained something.)