Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- RedProtokoll 51s
- JMo 42s All death is certain.
- Fire 4m https://i.imgur.com/CF2ywFy.jpg
- Sivartas 25m I make the Grinch look happy.
- Emily 7m I lost myself, in the dark charade.
a Mench 18s Doing a bit of everything.
- zxq 16m
- F9DFCQ 7s
- NightHollow 30s
- Napoleon 1h
- Bruhlicious 6h Deine Mutter stinkt nach Erbrochenem und Bier.
And 28 more hiding and/or disguised
Sindomedome logo
a cyberpunk roleplaying game
banner art by Grand Failure
Connect to Sindome @ moo.sindome.org:5555 or just Play Now

Wiring Hub I/O Filters

Login to post. Membership required.
Jump To
Newest Post
Currently hubs can be set to take input or output from 1 connected device, ALL connected devices or NO connected devices.

It would be amazing if the hubs took a standard range filter.

For example, if there is a hub with 5 inputs, it would accept a filter like;

1-3,5

Which would exclude input 4

Or a filter like;

2-5

Which would exclude input 1

Is that possible, or is that a coding nightmare?

If it is possible, please apply it to Inputs and Outputs.

Even if it gets gated behind a high level skill check, it would be a game changing addition to the game.

By Hek at Jan 1, 2021 9:36 PM
I like this idea a lot for quality of life, but it could also diminish the value of touch screens / switchboards.
By Rhicora at Jan 1, 2021 9:37 PM
Or maybe instead of directly changing the code, there could be a modification chip that enables filter functionality (sort of like chips for other devices enable other functionality on those other devices).
By Hek at Jan 1, 2021 9:37 PM
So I'll be the voice of opposition here. As a rule, I am generally against features that make large, complex security networks possible.

Why? I love Techs and I want them to have more to do. I really do. But I don't really want it in the security device arena.

I have literally seen such networks make is so a vast majority of PCs avoided the two largest apartment complexes in the game. I have seen them turn sitting in your apartment staring at a screen into a rewarding play style.

I have also seen PCs serially ignore ambient population and NPCs or use flimsy RP to justify installing or tampering with devices in places they have no right to do so under the GM's radar.

I have seen these networks get so bad that I can recall three specific occasions where GMs have had to step in and to massive fixes on these networks, spending hours and hours cleaning up networks that should never really have existed given the IC situation.

So until I start seeing a lot of these issues fixed, I am generally against adding new features that make doing all of this easier. I know my opinion isn't going to be a popular one but there you have it.

By Grey0 at Jan 2, 2021 1:22 AM
@Grey0

I appreciate your perspective and as someone who plays the devil's advocate quite frequently, I respect your input here.

You are on point that this is definitely a QOL improvement that would make managing a network significantly easier. In that regard, I believe that it does come down to balance like you implied.

Without going into details about this one case and just talking about time involved, if this change were made it would allow my character to ICly accomplish something in about 5 minutes by themselves that is otherwise going to take an hour or more, and meeting with multiple PCs.

From that perspective alone, I would trash can my idea and err on the side of creating RP.

The other side of the coin is that the change I propose would enable creating truly complex and dynamic networks. Networks that would be easier to expand to more characters and make them more accessible to a wider portion of the player base. That is assuming that my character is benevolent and willing to share. As you mentioned in your reply, you've seen the opposite where networks got too "powerful" and had to be modified by staff.

I feel like I am fairly neutral here. Most of my Ideas evolve from me running into limitations with the code. Limitations where I can envision something, but what I envision does not seem to be possible with the code in it's current state. While the suggestions would benefit my character, they are not for the exclusive benefit of my character. They are changes that would make the game more dynamic.

All that being said, I am ready for this one to end up going the way of my change notification suggestion. By that I mean, the likelihood of people exploiting the Idea outweighs the benefits of implementing it.

By Hek at Jan 2, 2021 3:38 PM
I actually think that it's a great idea. I would just personally like to see other things put into place first before more features are added to make large complex security networks easier.

If I felt that other elements (code preferably, policy acceptably) were in place to help restrict the reach of these networks and make placement of devices that would be meta or have a negative impact on game play harder, I would be all over something like this.

And, of course, this is just my opinion. I know for a fact that others want more and larger security networks because they like the 'big brother' aspect in some cyberpunk themes. Screw restrictions and all that. Not gonna saw my views are more valid than anyone else's.

And yes, I can often be a rather contrary individual. :P

By Grey0 at Jan 2, 2021 6:20 PM
@Grey0

Do you think that you can talk about some of the restrictions that you are thinking of? (I don't want to delve into any IC game mechanics.)

One thing I think would be cool is some forced IC emotes when working with devices. I have developed the habit of throwing a few poses out there. But when I first started playing I was just typing commands and leaving it at that.

FWIW - Staff has been very proactive with me when my character got some devices in places that weren't appropriate. Given that, I am all for any IC controls or other mechanisms that can be put in place before it gets to that. I always feel a bit dumb when that yellow wall of "You screwed up" text appears.

I can think of a great modification to some of the current gear that would seriously up the risk for people who deploy networks. It's too much to go into on BgBB, but there are definitely ways to make them more risky to install and maintain.

By Hek at Jan 2, 2021 6:45 PM
Jump To Oldest Post