Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: inca1980 on <09-04-10/1705:34>

Title: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: inca1980 on <09-04-10/1705:34>
I have been in several arguments about this and it's an important topic so I'd like to know if a Dev could comment on this. 
1. Can the signal rating of a commlink be lowered like a volume?  For example, does a Fairlight Caliban have a dial or something where you can turn the signal down from it's value of 5 to a signal of 1 say with a free, simple or complex action? 
2. If commlink X wants to detect and know the physical location of commlink Y, be it active, passive or hidden, which of the following needs to be true?:
    A. Y needs to be inside of X's signal range
    B. X needs to be inside of Y's signal range
    C.  They both need to be in mutual signal range.

Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-04-10/1713:37>
Unofficially...

1) I see no reason why it couldn't. All you are talking about is adding a rheostat.

2) The key word in your question is 'detect'. So I would say that X needs to be within Y's signal range.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: inca1980 on <09-04-10/1725:25>
But you would probably have to modify the commlink separately ....it doesn't come off the shelf with a rheostat does it?
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-04-10/1730:37>
Still unofficially...

I would say that you are right, that it would require modification more than likely.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Catadmin on <09-05-10/1516:41>
I'm going to conditionally disagree with John's answer to question number. To quote SR4 "Signal represents a device’s raw broadcasting power. The higher the Signal, the farther the device can transmit. Though many factors can affect a device’s Signal rating, the most important are antenna size and raw electrical power."

What this tells me is that you cannot functionally turn down a commlink's signal without permanently affecting it's raw / base broadcasting power.

Now, I agree that you don't have to broadcast at full strength and can indeed use it at low power.  But my disagreement lies in this: to alter the actual device's Signal property (lowering it) is tantamount to breaking your commlink.

This is another unofficial interpretation. I'd love to hear everyone else's take on the matter.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Mooncrow on <09-05-10/1526:22>
Considering you can adjust your cellphone's signal strength, right now without much hassle, I would say I agree more with John.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Caine Hazen on <09-05-10/1858:59>
Considering you can adjust your cellphone's signal strength, right now without much hassle, I would say I agree more with John.
Yeah, being someone who uses radios in the field; there are plenty of ways you can increase and decrease strength that don't involve lots of tinkering.  I know I can easliy swap out antennea on my radio I use for OPs to change the signal MHz, or strenght.  Currently I have a 5 watt on it, but I know guys who do have the anntenae to broadcast higher, and can amek a swapout in the field.  Hell, I'll double check with Land Radio Ops when I'm back in the shop Tuesday...
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-06-10/0656:29>
@ Catadmin

I agree with you! If you handed me a commlink and a soldering iron...it would be "tantamount to breaking your commlink."  ;D

While the rules may not specifically address what I suggested...the theory behind my suggestion should work. A rheostat (an adjustable resistor) placed in front of the power source should allow you to control how much power makes it into the device and out to the antenna.

Would it fit inside the original case? Probably not...so you would be looking at a Radio Shack run for a project box.

I certainly could be wrong, obviously there is a threshold where to little voltage and the device won't work.

It is an interesting question though since people normally want to increase their broadcasting range.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Kontact on <09-06-10/0703:08>
Unofficially...

2) The key word in your question is 'detect'. So I would say that X needs to be within Y's signal range.

The Detect Hidden Node action requires mutual signal range, so why would locating the physical location of a wireless node require anything less?
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-06-10/0706:56>
Really?

Well that is just silly. Picking up a signal has nothing to do with broadcasting range of the receiver. I shall have to find out who wrote that and tease them about it.  ;D
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-06-10/0719:06>
I would be curious to hear the explaination (from whoever came up with that) of how you can 'hide' a node. If it is broadcasting, while it may be encrypted...using burst transmission or even imbedded in another transmission, energy is going out.  ;D
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Kontact on <09-06-10/0743:18>
My guess is that it's listening in and responds to the ping in some way.  It would explain why it's not continuously broadcasting like an active node, and why it would require mutual signals for a sort of handshake.

It is pretty backwards how signal capture stuff works though.  A node could be hidden (so it's ID isn't being broadcast as an ARO [active] or responding to regular scans[passive]) but broadcasting, and, in order to capture that signal which is traveling through the air, a hacker needs to first:
1) Detect the Hidden Node (we're interested in the signal here... not the source) [this isn't to be done in combat since the threshold (4) regular test is a crapshoot at best.  extended test only plz.]
2) Decrypt the signal (so, we've decrypted it before we intercepted it.  go us.) [another extended test.  best not be combat spoofing.]
3) Finally succeed at the threshold (3) Capture Signal test. [yay! slightly less of a crapshoot!  where's my extended test this time?]

Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-06-10/0811:27>
You lost at with "A node could be hidden but broadcasting"  ;D

That simply doesn't make any sense to me.

If a node requires an encrypted authentication signal then sure...I am with you. That means that the node is passive until somebody comes along with the secret handshake to get the node to go active.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Kontact on <09-06-10/0826:58>
Yeah, but then, once it goes active....

Obviously we see the same problem here.  :-X
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-06-10/0837:55>
Yeah, it is a little strange.

Frequency hopping and burst transmissions I can understand but this....???

I need to read those rules again...obviously!  ;D
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Catadmin on <09-06-10/1039:30>
I would be curious to hear the explaination (from whoever came up with that) of how you can 'hide' a node. If it is broadcasting, while it may be encrypted...using burst transmission or even imbedded in another transmission, energy is going out.  ;D

Ignoring the broadcasting part of your statement, hiding a node would be easy if you only allow it to receive subscriptions from those devices pre-programmed to "see" the node. It's how wireless home networks work today. You don't just encrypted the WEP Key, you don't allow the network to openly broadcast, and program it to only accept connections from specific MAC addresses.

Of course, in SR, if the runners can hack one of those subscribing devices, you no longer have a hidden node. To find it, all the runners have to do is start looking for broadcasting devices that are sending traffic ... nowhere. Hack the device, follow the trail, and viola, you have your hidden node.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Kontact on <09-06-10/2000:07>
Doesn't that put the cart before the horse though?
You can't grab the signal until you decrypt it, and you can't Initiate Cryptanalysis it until you have the node.

Or is access to a signal different than actually capturing it?
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-06-10/2205:45>
Please make the brain baby stop kicking! LOL

Still haven't had a chance to read to the rules on that yet. Not sure that I want to either!  ;D
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Caine Hazen on <09-06-10/2212:27>
SR4A + Unwired + realistic sense of networks = headachiness sometimes.

just think 50 years in the future... quantum computing, scifi computers... or drink yourself to sleep after hacking nights like I do  ::)
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-06-10/2229:51>
I have a couple of fifths of schnaaps in the freezer so I could do that!  ;D
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Mooncrow on <09-06-10/2341:41>
I have a couple of fifths of schnaaps in the freezer so I could do that!  ;D

Scotch basically keeps me going when I have to plow through Sensor rules.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: FastJack on <09-06-10/2345:08>
Hmm... I don't seem to have any problems with the stuff.

But, then again, I wired myself with a encephalon processor and Math SPU. ;)
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-07-10/0014:57>
So I should get your number Fastjack and put it into speed dial for quick answers when I am running a game?  ;D

Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: 1 on <09-07-10/0136:52>
Now, I agree that you don't have to broadcast at full strength and can indeed use it at low power.  But my disagreement lies in this: to alter the actual device's Signal property (lowering it) is tantamount to breaking your commlink.

This is another unofficial interpretation. I'd love to hear everyone else's take on the matter.
As mentioned elsewhere, this is a screenshot of DD-WRT (Linux based firmware for routers)
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2hrd9w8.jpg)
Note the TX power input. This basically allows full control over the broadcast power of your router.

Note that this is a software control, not a hardware control. The firmware works on many pieces of hardware by various companies.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: John Schmidt on <09-07-10/0242:58>
COOL!  ;D

Even simpler than I had imagined without having to get out a soldering iron.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Lansdren on <09-07-10/0510:57>
A possible suggestion I had been kicking around is for it to be another program to run and use. Make it same costs as a hacking program and the rating of the program has to equal the signal of the commlink. Granted this makes it a possibly expensive program but in line with everything else and there is still the freeware / pirated option.


I do like the idea of a team dialing down their signals to 1- 2 sticking close together and when in hidden mode still being able to send comms to each other without lighing up the em spectrum for miles around
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <09-07-10/0634:49>
They could drop it to zero and just communicate by touch if necessary.  (Skinlink can work both ways, I imagine.)
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: FastJack on <09-07-10/0902:03>
So I should get your number Fastjack and put it into speed dial for quick answers when I am running a game?  ;D
Only if my shows aren't on... :D
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: 1 on <09-07-10/0930:32>
The Detect Hidden Node action requires mutual signal range, so why would locating the physical location of a wireless node require anything less?

Thoughts on "Detect Hidden" and Mutual Signal Range.

It helped me to understand why the Detect Hidden Node action requires mutual signal range when I broke Detect Hidden into multiple steps.

1) Detect Broadcasting. This requires an antenna, nothing more. Detecting the physical location could possibly require two antennas that can communicate with each other so that they can triangulate. Or it may simply be that one antenna can calculate direction, current signal strength, and original signal strength through some combination of hardware, software, and protocols. I don't know how, but we've 60+ years to figure it out. Worse comes to worse, have your hacker own a nearby router or three and use that plus your commlink to triangulate.

2) Either way, Detect Broadcasting within Signal Range requires some capability to detect location, or at least range. It's the subset of devices that you should be able to talk to based on their location, their signal strength, the signal strength you're getting from them (to adjust for interference, etc.), etc.. Yay for computing power...

3) Detect Public within Signal Range (Detect Public). This requires mutual signal range. You send standard protocols out and gather up the responses. For Detect Public, you need to be within mutual signal range and you need to "out" yourself. Basically, this is a list of all the devices that play well with others. Note that playing well with others may be advantageous at times*.

4) Detect Hidden. Subtract Detect Public from Detect Broadcasting within Signal Range. This leaves you with all "Verified Non-Public Broadcasting", ie. "Hidden".



Edit: Note on "playing well with others". A Telematics Infrastructure (Unwired, pg 62) that's operating hidden is going to alert every hacker that runs a Detect Hidden scan. A TI has way too many devices broadcasting and serving as wireless bridges. On the other hand, a Telematics Infrastructure that's opering as a public series of routers simply appears to be a very large collection of bridges and routers. By being "out in the open", the hacker is less able to tell the purpose of the system.

On the flip side, running hidden and having the signal from your 'ware picked up by a Telematics Infrastructure is not good news. Hacking and conning your way in and acting like you're supposed to be there (complete with public) is a much better way to get past a T.I.

Being undetected while being visible in the astral and wireless worlds has it's challenges.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: KeyMasterOfGozer on <09-07-10/1048:50>
As some additional support for Newb...  I've seen this type of thing on many routers as well.  This can also be used for power saving modes of smaller wireless devices.  The Signal Rating could very well represent the MAXIMUM range.  I could imagine smart devices automatically reducing their signal strength based on how strong they need to be to connect to the nearest source.  And certainly, this could be manipulated in software by a decker/hacker type guy.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <09-07-10/1150:20>
It could be one way of silencing someones PAN.  Switching off their antenna.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Kontact on <09-08-10/2129:27>
Yeah, you definitely have to be able to turn wireless completely off, or skinlink is useless outside of counter-jamming purposes. 
Even a Signal of 0 has a range of 3 meters, which is well within where Johnson sits at the meet.  Muy peligroso.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Catadmin on <09-09-10/1754:36>
Doesn't that put the cart before the horse though?
You can't grab the signal until you decrypt it, and you can't Initiate Cryptanalysis it until you have the node.

Or is access to a signal different than actually capturing it?

If you're talking about the hidden node issue (which you may not be), the node actually is in passive mode and the subscribing devices already have the node information (SSID, password, etc.) and broadcast to that node, then the node responds to them. To decrypt the signal, you need to get one of those subscribing devices, hack it, and then you have the node.

If I'm wrong about what you're referring to, let me know. I'm a few days behind on this thread.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: epkdnb on <09-10-10/2109:39>
I see it from two different views:

1) Realistic: changing the broadcast strength on a device is very very easy to do , probably a free or simple action.  Plenty of examples have been posted already.

2) Balance: Let's say I'm the teams backup hacker with mediocre gear and skills.  Super elite hacker VRs into my 'link and starts attacking my icon/my programs, what have you.  If I'm allowed to simply lower my signal (which might not even be an opposed test, cause it's my 'link), now the super elite hacker is easily booted from my system because there can no longer be a connection between our 'links.

So while yes I greatly appreciate realism, I think that for balance sake it shouldn't be allowed.  While you could initiate a shutdown of your 'link to achieve the same thing, lowering the signal generally does not have any of the disadvantages of rebooting.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: The_Gun_Nut on <09-11-10/1248:02>
"Balance" is for shifty fantasy games that have people doing epic crap for the sake of being epic.  Shadowrun is set in a highly realistic setting (the real world).  While magic gives it a fantasy character, everyone and everything in the setting acts and reacts realistically and plausibly.  There are no "Sons of the Lost King running around with magic swords taking over kingdoms because everyone expects him to lead them to victory," because that is asinine.  It is a high fantasy trope that can only work in fiction, where the author has control over the story.

Ever shout at a movie because the characters did something retarded for the sake of moving the story forward?  That doesn't mesh well in a world where people die from doing something dumb.  Shadowrun does have a few people doing dumb things like that, and they are dead or soon to be.  You don't survive without learning, you don't get paid without thinking.

Remember that there are consequences to every action.  Even if it is only a free action to drop your signal and thus boot the hacker, you just dropped the rest of your team, too.  And when you power it up, your team gets distracted by you logging back into their network (assuming they have theirs on active) and the hacker gets a new chance to grab you.  You, on the other hand, have to reaquire all the signals you just dumped.  That can be a problem if you were trying to hack anything at all (which is likely).

"Game Balance" is, IMO, often the lazy way to judge an action (even in those wacky fantasy games).  The "realistic" way often opens up options that the player hadn't considered previously, and wouldn't have if they had taken the "balanced" way out.  Don't fall prey to it, you will be rewarded for clever thinking in the long run (and possibly the short run, too).
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Irian on <09-11-10/1401:22>
"Balance" is for shifty fantasy games that have people doing epic crap for the sake of being epic.  Shadowrun is set in a highly realistic setting (the real world).  While magic gives it a fantasy character, everyone and everything in the setting acts and reacts realistically and plausibly.

No. Sorry, but just: No. Shadowrun was never big in the departments of "realistic" or "plausible". I'm not sure if someone ever asked the question what Shadowrun wants to be, but I personally would bet more on an Action-Movie approch instead of a gritty realistic one :-)
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: FastJack on <09-11-10/1419:15>
Actually, you could play it both ways.
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: 1 on <09-11-10/1438:40>
I'm not sure if someone ever asked the question what Shadowrun wants to be
I always thought the first edition was the ruleset for Streets of Fire (1984 movie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGo2rvfSuA

"You're about to enter a world unlike a world you've ever seen before where rock n'roll is king, the only law is a loaded gun. Where the beautiful, the brutal and the brave all meet."
Title: Re: Questions about Signal rating
Post by: Catadmin on <09-11-10/1443:59>
"Balance" is for shifty fantasy games that have people doing epic crap for the sake of being epic.  Shadowrun is set in a highly realistic setting (the real world).

There are a lot of people who would both agree and disagree with this statement. @=)

For those wanting to debate it, perhaps a thread should be opened up that is solely devoted to that subject. Just a suggestion.