Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Lethrendis on <08-10-20/0425:08>
-
I have a question about direct connection. This is mentioned several times in the CRB, but not explained. What is the range of a direct connection? Does the hacker have to touch (somehow), or is he enough to be in a "close" physical presence? What is a "close" presence?
By the way, the range of PANs is not mentioned either. Or how big is the reach of large HOSTs and their protection of subordinate devices. Can a security guard with a protected weapon come out in front of the building? Cross the street without losing the HOSTs protection? Can he go even further?
-
A direct connection in previous edition meant that you connected with a physical cable instead of using wifi.
Range of a PAN is limited by noise.
Host Networks are not limited by range.
-
A direct connection in previous edition meant that you connected with a physical cable instead of using wifi.
Range of a PAN is limited by noise.
Host Networks are not limited by range.
So, Ares squad could travel to Mars and still have their gear protected by Ares host?
-
Host Networks are not limited by range.
Hmm.
Alice and Bob are security personnel inside a facility. Their gear is connected to a WAN. The facility is protected by high-rated wifi-blocking paint, to hamper deckers outside the building from hacking in. Do Alice and Bob take noise penalties on the WAN from the blocking paint?
Alice walks outside. Does she take noise penalties now?
Charlie is a decker sat outside the facility. They want to hack the WAN. Do they take a noise penalty from the blocking paint?
-
You can think of a PAN as a small mobile personal network while a Host is typically a large stationary network.
Wireless enabled devices that are slaved / part of a network (host or PAN, doesn't really matter what type of network we are talking about in this case) act as wireless 'access points' for that network. If a potential hacker is 5 meters from a slaved device then the hacker is also 5 meters from the network the device is part of. For all intents and purposes there is also no distance within a network (once you have access on the network you have access on the entire network, including all its devices and files, even if a host can be really large and can potentially perhaps even have slaved devices scattered over different continents).
If there is wireless inhibiting paint between a hacker and the network then the hacker suffer noise penalties from the wireless inhibiting paint. If the wireless inhibiting paint is not between the hacker and the network (perhaps because the hacker is hacking the network from inside the facility) then the hacker does not suffer noise penalties from the wireless inhibiting paint.
If the hacker have a direct connection to a device that is slaved / part of a nestled host network then the hacker don't have to hack the outer onion layers of the host network, he can directly hack the inner host that the device is part of.
Hope that helps.
-
Host Networks are not limited by range.
Hmm.
Alice and Bob are security personnel inside a facility. Their gear is connected to a WAN. The facility is protected by high-rated wifi-blocking paint, to hamper deckers outside the building from hacking in. Do Alice and Bob take noise penalties on the WAN from the blocking paint?
Alice walks outside. Does she take noise penalties now?
Charlie is a decker sat outside the facility. They want to hack the WAN. Do they take a noise penalty from the blocking paint?
So, a key concept here is that Hosts don't have a physical location. For example: a host that controls the doors, cameras, and other devices for a building is not physically inside that building. Technically speaking, there's no requirement for any physical hardware like a server (or server farm, or something analogous) for a host to exist... they're (as of 5e lore anyway) basically built on the souls of dead technomancers. And even if/when there are requirements for servers, they can be in a farm in Singapore, Neo-Tokyo, Berlin, hell even all three simultaneously. Either way, there's zero correlation to the physical location of any devices that are part of that host's network.
So, since you can't measure a distance between a physical object in the real world to a point that either does not exist or is undefined, then you logically CANNOT have a distance. And if there's no distance, there cannot be distance based noise.
Now with regards to wireless negation technology, that involves physical locations. If Charlie the hacker wants to hack the building's host, then the paint/wallpaper doesn't affect his actions. How can it, when the host isn't inside the building? However, any devices inside the host do have that "noise barrier" between them and Charlie. So even if you hack into the host, dealing with devices inside that physical area (like, say, a file archive, cameras, etc) ARE getting the bonus Noise versus Charlie's actions. He'll have to break into the facility to "get inside" that Noise barrier if he wants to avoid those penalties. And of course wireless negation can be installed in layers, or in a compartmentalized fashion.
Alice and Bob, OTOH, are in a different situation as employees/security personnel. They likely aren't making any hacking actions, and therefore don't care about Noise. All that really matters, from their point of view, where the shielding is so strong that their commlinks don't talk to the rest of the building. Of course, when they're in such a room they can't be hacked from the outside. If Charlie happens to be in there with them inside the shielded room... well there's no wireless negation between Charlie and Alice/Bob to inflict Noise!
-
Well, good. And what prevents megacorporations from protecting all their devices with the strongest possible rating when they are not physically limited? And if more or less everything is built on the Foundation, then they would not lack the computing capacity for that.
-
Since Shadowrunners are not supposed to own hosts there are no rules for how expansive hosts are, but rest be assured that higher rated hosts are more expansive than lower rated hosts.
Hosts come in the range of 1 to 12. GM get to choose how difficult the host is depending on how big of a threat the network is supposed to be (and perhaps also how skilled the team's hacker is).
You can also use the following guide lines from 5th edition:
1-2 Personal sites, pirate archives, public education
3-4 Low-end commercial, private business, public libraries, small policlubs
5–6 Social media, small colleges and universities, local police, international policlubs
7–8 Matrix games, local corporate hosts, large universities, low-level government
9–10 Affluent groups, regional corporate hosts, major government, secure sites
11–12 Megacorporate headquarters, military command, clandestine head office
-
Well, good. And what prevents megacorporations from protecting all their devices with the strongest possible rating when they are not physically limited? And if more or less everything is built on the Foundation, then they would not lack the computing capacity for that.
So, matrix (and astral!) security design is more or less like physical security design in that you combine features into a synergistic whole.
For example: A chain link fence is a common physical security measure. As are padlocks. But a chain link fence is fairly easy to climb, and padlocks are very easy to defeat if you have bolt cutters. But when you combine the two, the net protection is greater than the sum because in order to apply the bolt cutters to the padlock, you have to first have to climb the fence while carrying a heavy tool... which is harder than climbing it without!
Wireless negation is the matrix analogue for physical chain link fences (and astral wards). Normally you don't rely on a wall to keep intruders out... it's but one layer in your grand scheme.
Edit: Furthermore... if you just apply, say, rating 10 wireless negation throughout your building, it jams EVERYTHING up that needs to talk to another device across the barrier... not just hackers! You could run hardlines throughout the building so your devices can talk to each other despite the hard shielding... but then all a hacker has to do is compromise one connected device then they can abuse that direct connection themselves. You could just put a wompin' noise barrier around the exterior of the building but none of the interior walls.. but that's not so very secure really because all a hacker has to do to ignore that is simply physically get inside.
Edit 2: Of course a strong negation barrier that solely exists around the exterior of the building IS a fairly decent anti-drone surveillance measure...
-
So, a key concept here is that Hosts don't have a physical location.
This is less true in 6e, BTW: "Some hosts exist entirely virtually and appear as floating above the black plane of the Matrix, while others are attached to physical hardware at a specific location." (6e CRB pg187)
Leaving that aside, however, do you believe you can enter a host while you are stood inside a perfect Faraday cage, with infinite noise between your commlink and every other Matrix device on the planet? If so, how? If not, why not?
Now with regards to wireless negation technology, that involves physical locations. If Charlie the hacker wants to hack the building's host, then the paint/wallpaper doesn't affect his actions. How can it, when the host isn't inside the building?
Indeed!
However, any devices inside the host do have that "noise barrier" between them and Charlie. So even if you hack into the host, dealing with devices inside that physical area (like, say, a file archive, cameras, etc) ARE getting the bonus Noise versus Charlie's actions.
But there's no noise between icons inside a host, right? (Although on closer inspection, I cannot find any text in 6e that says this. It's probably there somewhere.)
Or is your interpretation there is no distance based noise between icons in a host, but there can still be interference based noise between them? I can't find anything about this on a quick skim in 6e, but in 5e, there's "If you are in a host that has a WAN, you are considered directly connected to all devices in the WAN." which to my mind suggests noise never effects anything within a WAN.
If so: Charlie sits outside the building and hack the host, enter the host, and sends a hacking command to (say) Bob's commlink. Bob's persona is in the host, Charlie is inside the host. The wifi blocking paint is between Bob and CHarlie and yet an argument can be made that the paint does nothing. Yes?
I'm struggling to see what wifi blocking paint does now. You can always hack into the host from anywhere. Once inside the host, you are "directly connected" to everything else in it, so can hack into that too. Doesn't seem like the paint does much for the corp to improve their security.
They likely aren't making any hacking actions, and therefore don't care about Noise.
I've seen this idea floating around that noise only affects hacking actions. I can't find much evidence for it in the book. CRB pg 176 defines noise as "Noise represents any interference between a user and their target. Noise can be created by sheer distance or other factors, such as jamming or obstructions." Nothing about legality.
Looking across the actions list, there are plenty of actions explicitly listed as legal that noise affects (eg. control device.) Suggesting the matrix actions tagged as "legal" are "hacking actions" because they are effected by noise doesn't sit right with me. Encrypt File is a good example. A legal Matrix user might need to encrypt a file. It is marked as a legal action. It requires a test (to determine the encryption rating.) Does a wageslave potentially suffer a noise penalty to encrypt the file they are working on?
Which brings me onto my next point:
However, any devices inside the host do have that "noise barrier" between them and Charlie. So even if you hack into the host, dealing with devices inside that physical area (like, say, a file archive...
You suggest that Charlie might have a noise penalty when working with a file that is inside the host.
That suggests the file icon has a physical location that is inside the wireless blocking wallpaper, while the host does not. Was that your intent?
As far as I can see, you should never have a noise penalty when hacking files from a host, as you have no penalty to reach the host, and the files are inside the host.
Or are you suggesting that hosts do not store files, and the files are always in the physical world, and just happen to be corralled inside the host?
-
Well, good. And what prevents megacorporations from protecting all their devices with the strongest possible rating when they are not physically limited? And if more or less everything is built on the Foundation, then they would not lack the computing capacity for that.
Nobody said that higher rating hosts were not more expensive to set up and to operate. It might change in sixth, but in fifth hosts were grown from a foundation, a foundation run was required to strengthen a host or make major changes. Foundation runs are dangerous for anyone, including authorized users. So there were few people with the skill level to grow and configure high rating hosts, and even those would probably want danger pay.
-
And you don't want to slave everything to your biggest Host because it means you got a single point of failure, plus with that many users policing it becomes a nightmare. Can you imagine Google using a single office building for their entire 100k staff?
-
*snip*
I think this is one of the inconsistencies of the new matrix. The matrix works in such a way that physical limitations do not exist (Because of techno souls), but at the same time, it is affected by noise and by blackouts.
We might be able to handwave noise as an analog of "background count" instead of actual latency/jitter/etc, but that still doesn't explain why a blackout affects matrix connectivity. Tricky stuff.
-
*snip*
I think this is one of the inconsistencies of the new matrix. The matrix works in such a way that physical limitations do not exist (Because of techno souls), but at the same time, it is affected by noise and by blackouts.
We might be able to handwave noise as an analog of "background count" instead of actual latency/jitter/etc, but that still doesn't explain why a blackout affects matrix connectivity. Tricky stuff.
I know.
Personally I think it’s all the most horrendous mess, but I’m fascinated by the folks who seem able to reconcile it all. I don’t know how they do it.
-
So, a key concept here is that Hosts don't have a physical location.
This is less true in 6e, BTW: "Some hosts exist entirely virtually and appear as floating above the black plane of the Matrix, while others are attached to physical hardware at a specific location." (6e CRB pg187)
Granted, yes if a host is said to have an explicit location, then you can measure distance. However, for the purposes of consistency I believe that even in those cases you "should" just ignore distance between that location and the location of any devices that are part of the host's network. 1) it's kinda silly for it to work differently for two otherwise identical hosts and 2) when playing published materials, they don't really (if ever) specify whether the host has a physical location. And again, even if it does have a physical location, who's to say it's in the same building, sprawl, or even continent?
Leaving that aside, however, do you believe you can enter a host while you are stood inside a perfect Faraday cage, with infinite noise between your commlink and every other Matrix device on the planet? If so, how? If not, why not?
As I read the RAW: when inside the faraday cage you only have infinite noise between your commlink and every other device outside the faraday cage. Another device inside the cage with you has no Noise (unless of course it's a huge cage and there's enough distance to generate distance based noise). Now this might on one hand seem stupid, on the other the matrix doesn't work on TCP/IP transmission protocols.. or frankly anything else other than what is ultimately "Magic". So...whatevs. Rules say it works that way, so that's the way it works. (disclosure: note that the guy who writes the matrix rules doesn't necessarily agree with me here. I'll let him explain his views rather than put words in his mouth...)
Now with regards to wireless negation technology, that involves physical locations. If Charlie the hacker wants to hack the building's host, then the paint/wallpaper doesn't affect his actions. How can it, when the host isn't inside the building?
Indeed!
Indeed, indeed! :D But we segue into...
However, any devices inside the host do have that "noise barrier" between them and Charlie. So even if you hack into the host, dealing with devices inside that physical area (like, say, a file archive, cameras, etc) ARE getting the bonus Noise versus Charlie's actions.
But there's no noise between icons inside a host, right? (Although on closer inspection, I cannot find any text in 6e that says this. It's probably there somewhere.)
The way I read wireless negation (and faraday cages, with regards to the physics-defying matrix) is that they are barriers rather than fields. Granted, the barrier must usually fully enclose a device in order for the negation to apply because there's not necessarily any need for a matrix communication to take the most direct path between two physical locations. IIRC this non-reliance on the most direct path between two points is assumed rather than said... but if you DON'T presume this, then you have to start considering all the potential sources of interference between to distant points rather than the immediate areas around the two. So for simplicity's sake... I believe it's best to assume matrix comms "magically" find and take the path of least resistance. Ergo if you don't physically enclose wireless negation around a device, then there's no wireless negation.
And while my understanding requires the barrier needs to encase a volume, it's still not imposing noise on that interior volume... it's only a box rather than a solid brick of noise throughout the interior. Communication going into or out of the box is affected. Communication never going inside the box is obviously not affected, but the wrinkle is neither is any communication between two points inside the box affected by the box!
Or is your interpretation there is no distance based noise between icons in a host, but there can still be interference based noise between them? I can't find anything about this on a quick skim in 6e, but in 5e, there's "If you are in a host that has a WAN, you are considered directly connected to all devices in the WAN." which to my mind suggests noise never effects anything within a WAN.
So, if the host has no physical location then it's irrelevant if you're inside the box or outside the box. And if the host DOES have a physical location, then maybe it should now matter logically... but I prefer to think that it doesn't, for consistency's sake (as explained above). All it takes to suspend my disbelief is to say that commlinks/cyberdecks/RCCs can't communicate with their networks in whatever way hosts do that allow them to "see through" wireless negation.
If so: Charlie sits outside the building and hack the host, enter the host, and sends a hacking command to (say) Bob's commlink. Bob's persona is in the host, Charlie is inside the host. The wifi blocking paint is between Bob and CHarlie and yet an argument can be made that the paint does nothing. Yes?
...
I'm struggling to see what wifi blocking paint does now. You can always hack into the host from anywhere. Once inside the host, you are "directly connected" to everything else in it, so can hack into that too. Doesn't seem like the paint does much for the corp to improve their security.
Ok, Charlie is the hacker "outside the box" of wireless negation. He enters the host. The host can talk to Bob the security guard's commlink without suffering Noise, but Charlie is not the host. His icon is inside the host yes but his physical location is still outside the building. Doing anything to Bob's commlink, whether Charlie has hacked into the host or not, suffers Noise.
They likely aren't making any hacking actions, and therefore don't care about Noise.
I've seen this idea floating around that noise only affects hacking actions. I can't find much evidence for it in the book. CRB pg 176 defines noise as "Noise represents any interference between a user and their target. Noise can be created by sheer distance or other factors, such as jamming or obstructions." Nothing about legality.
Looking across the actions list, there are plenty of actions explicitly listed as legal that noise affects (eg. control device.) Suggesting the matrix actions tagged as "legal" are "hacking actions" because they are effected by noise doesn't sit right with me. Encrypt File is a good example. A legal Matrix user might need to encrypt a file. It is marked as a legal action. It requires a test (to determine the encryption rating.) Does a wageslave potentially suffer a noise penalty to encrypt the file they are working on?
The presumption is that MOST legal actions don't/shouldn't involve dice tests. Controlling drones is the obvious exception, of course. You don't roll anything to make a commcall. You probably shouldn't have to roll anything to update your contacts list in your commlink, even though that'd be governed by the Edit File matrix action. Basically, the only reason the wageslave would really roll to encrypt a file is because it's setting the difficulty for a future hacking action. Subtracting dice from an activity that doesn't even have a roll is a mechanically meaningless "penalty".
So, technically, in the case of the wageslave encrypting a file while that wageslave is inside a "box" of wireless negation... it depends on whether the file is out on the host or "directly" stored on a device. On the host: no noise, assuming the commlink or terminal is part of the host's network, of course. Not on the host: it depends on whether there's a wireless negation barrier between the wageslave's commlink/work terminal and that destination device.
Which brings me onto my next point:
However, any devices inside the host do have that "noise barrier" between them and Charlie. So even if you hack into the host, dealing with devices inside that physical area (like, say, a file archive...
You suggest that Charlie might have a noise penalty when working with a file that is inside the host.
That suggests the file icon has a physical location that is inside the wireless blocking wallpaper, while the host does not. Was that your intent?
I bolded part of what you said, because it's an incorrect characterization of what I said. No, I said he'd potentially suffer noise if the file was on a device behind a noise barrier, NOT on the host itself.
As far as I can see, you should never have a noise penalty when hacking files from a host, as you have no penalty to reach the host, and the files are inside the host.
Yes, on that we're agreeing.
Whether Charlie is inside or outside of the box (or, through bizzare RAW, even inside a farraday cage! but surely that's not RAI...) he's not suffering any noise talking TO the host nor doing anything inside the host once he's inside. If the file has no physical location and exists solely "inside" whatever device/magic makes the host, then there can be no measurable distance between Charlie and that file.
(And I got slipped by 4 messages while typing this up! will review and respond if my opinion is warranted after this post :D )
-
*snip*
I think this is one of the inconsistencies of the new matrix. The matrix works in such a way that physical limitations do not exist (Because of techno souls), but at the same time, it is affected by noise and by blackouts.
We might be able to handwave noise as an analog of "background count" instead of actual latency/jitter/etc, but that still doesn't explain why a blackout affects matrix connectivity. Tricky stuff.
Not too difficult to imagine if you assume the "blackout" was a matrix based attack
-
*snip*
I think this is one of the inconsistencies of the new matrix. The matrix works in such a way that physical limitations do not exist (Because of techno souls), but at the same time, it is affected by noise and by blackouts.
We might be able to handwave noise as an analog of "background count" instead of actual latency/jitter/etc, but that still doesn't explain why a blackout affects matrix connectivity. Tricky stuff.
I know.
Personally I think it’s all the most horrendous mess, but I’m fascinated by the folks who seem able to reconcile it all. I don’t know how they do it.
I don't mind hollywood-isms when it comes to the Matrix- it's a game, it'd be foolish to try and replicate everything IRL. But even in magic systems, inconsistency is un-fun.
I think SSDR's most recent post is about the closest you're going to get to a solid understanding of the Matrix. RAW/RAI don't always match, and it's hard to tell when "fluff" ends and "hard rules" begin. Re: multi-attack, even if the author intended for you to attack twice with one weapon, they certainly didn't intend for you to attack twenty-five times. I digress.
*snip*
I think this is one of the inconsistencies of the new matrix. The matrix works in such a way that physical limitations do not exist (Because of techno souls), but at the same time, it is affected by noise and by blackouts.
We might be able to handwave noise as an analog of "background count" instead of actual latency/jitter/etc, but that still doesn't explain why a blackout affects matrix connectivity. Tricky stuff.
Not too difficult to imagine if you assume the "blackout" was a matrix based attack
Yeah, but then that begs the question of why devices didn't simply go into "no network found" or "offline" mode. It's understandable that common consumer devices like cars would stop functioning without the matrix (That happens today (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/02/driver-stranded-after-connected-rental-car-cant-call-home/)), but all electronic devices? I feel like any decker or rigger worth their salt would remove any corp "call home" functions from their deck (If not, then why don't corps track those GPS positions?).
It's a hollywoodism, and honestly I wasn't very satisfied with how 30 Nights resolved things.
-
This seems even less clear.
Do hosts have a physical location or not?
-
This seems even less clear.
Do hosts have a physical location or not?
The RAW is "No, but sometimes Yes."
-
So, a key concept here is that Hosts don't have a physical location.
This is less true in 6e, BTW: "Some hosts exist entirely virtually and appear as floating above the black plane of the Matrix, while others are attached to physical hardware at a specific location." (6e CRB pg187)
Yes
A host that is protecting a physical facility is most likely also physically located somewhere inside that facility (in this edition).
And you also get noise due to distance to that host depending on how far away from the physical facility you are.
This is intended.
do you believe you can enter a host while you are stood inside a perfect Faraday cage, with infinite noise between your commlink and every other Matrix device on the planet? If so, how? If not, why not?
If you are in inside a Faraday's cage then you are completely cut off from everything matrix related (unless you are connected via a cable).
But even outside of a Faraday's cage the distance between you and the network (PAN or physical host) matters. As do interfering noise due to inhibiting wallpaper etc between you and the target network. And situational noise (perhaps you are in a spam zone or in a static zone which mean you have a really bad connection).
If noise levels get too high then you can't connect to the network (or your own drone for that matter).
Now with regards to wireless negation technology, that involves physical locations. If Charlie the hacker wants to hack the building's host, then the paint/wallpaper doesn't affect his actions. How can it, when the host isn't inside the building?
Indeed!
Unless if it is!
And even in 5th edition (where hosts were always virtual and you always had zero distance to them) you still had to fight noise ratings when attacking a slaved device out on the grid (unless you were physically connected to the device or if you attacked the device from within the host it was slaved to).
...noise between icons inside a host...
Noise as a game mechanic is mostly there to make it harder to remote hacking / as incentive to join the team on site.
If your hacker join the team then you normally don't have to worry about noise (there will be no noise due to distance and there will also be no inhibiting noise from wallpaper or paint of the exterior walls etc)
I'm struggling to see what wifi blocking paint does now.
It act as a negative dice pool modifier for remote hackers trying to access networks (like PANs and physical hosts) located on the other side of the wifi blocking paint.
Because of techno souls
For this edition it seem as if we are given the option to use physical hosts that run on actual hardware.
Feel free to use that ;-)
Slipped by 5 posts while typing this.....
Will reply to them in a separate post :-)
-
This seems even less clear.
Do hosts have a physical location or not?
Yes. CRB, pg 172
Icons whose hosts are closest to your meat body appear closer, with physically far-away hosts seeming out of sight of your virtual perceptions. Of course, physics is just a suggestion within the Matrix, and traveling these distances in the blink of an eye is as simple as willing yourself to your destination. Still other icons and access points
exist, so that people across the globe can log on whever they want.
CRB also talks about addresses being assigned based on physical location (Similar to public IPs IRL), at least for users.
I think the more significant question is "when does this matter?" And, "to what degree?"
There's also the question of if the physical location of a host is simply "what GPS locations is it accessible from" or "where the physical hardware is hosting the host". This may be irrelevant
Edit: Man, this thread is popular. Missed two posts above that may clarify things.
-
Edit: Man, this thread is popular. Missed two posts above that may clarify things.
I happen to know that some of the people likely contributing to the inevitable matrix book have been watching the thread, and are seeing tricky issues that could use some ironing :D
-
*snip*
Because of techno souls
For this edition it seem as if we are given the option to use physical hosts that run on actual hardware.
Feel free to use that ;-)
A valid point. Of course if you retcon out techno souls, then you must rely on physical network architecture. Routers, switches, cables, and firewalls are all physical. At minimum, you could say that the Matrix is all a big virtual network sitting on hypervisors. They don't even have to be on-site, plenty of places use the cloud. You would still need access points, be it wireless or wired. And wireless access points will have a range for connectivity.
Then, there are two possibilities:
1. The network* is not connected to the Matrix. Therefore, you must be in range of a wireless access point or directly connected in order to access it.
2. The network* is connected to the Matrix. Latency/jitter is a thing, but you do not need to be in range of the host.
*Edit: AKA Host, I'm still thinking with IT brain
Edit: Man, this thread is popular. Missed two posts above that may clarify things.
I happen to know that some of the people likely contributing to the inevitable matrix book have been watching the thread, and are seeing tricky issues that could use some ironing :D
Yeah, I think the Matrix itself in 6e has very solid foundations. I don't have any major complaints about it, mechanically speaking. It's just tricky to keep up with which lore is still in play and which lore is retconned.
-
*snip*
Because of techno souls
For this edition it seem as if we are given the option to use physical hosts that run on actual hardware.
Feel free to use that ;-)
A valid point. Of course if you retcon out techno souls, then you must rely on physical network architecture. Routers, switches, cables, and firewalls are all physical. At minimum, you could say that the Matrix is all a big virtual network sitting on hypervisors. They don't even have to be on-site, plenty of places use the cloud. You would still need access points, be it wireless or wired. And wireless access points will have a range for connectivity.
Then, there are two possibilities:
1. The network* is not connected to the Matrix. Therefore, you must be in range of a wireless access point or directly connected in order to access it.
2. The network* is connected to the Matrix. Latency/jitter is a thing, but you do not need to be in range of the host.
*Edit: AKA Host, I'm still thinking with IT brain
Even if you do retcon out the techno-souls angle, it doesn't change the mechanical truth that the matrix operates on rules that literally are not grounded by reality. It STILL may as well be magic, even if physical computers located somewhere on earth are necessary.
So if you want to hack your corner stuffer shack, it's almost guaranteed that its particular host is not running off a server somewhere on its premises, but rather at a regional HQ compound somewhere. A mom and pop "stop-n-rob" rather than a part of a global franchise? There's next to zero chance they're not just hiring out the running and upkeep of their own host to some corporation that offers that service (looking at you Renraku... data services is basically what they do). Either way...if there IS physical machinery running a host in many cases that machinery has absolutely no correlation to the physical location for an associated building. Grampa Olaf's liquor store host is more likely to be run from a computer in Neo-Tokyo than from inside his physical store that happens to be in Seattle.
And... you're still going to want to ignore distance-based Noise.
-
*snip*
Even if you do retcon out the techno-souls angle, it doesn't change the mechanical truth that the matrix operates on rules that literally are not grounded by reality. It STILL may as well be magic, even if physical computers located somewhere on earth are necessary.
So if you want to hack your corner stuffer shack, it's almost guaranteed that its particular host is not running off a server somewhere on its premises, but rather at a regional HQ compound somewhere. A mom and pop "stop-n-rob" rather than a part of a global franchise? There's next to zero chance they're not just hiring out the running and upkeep of their own host to some corporation that offers that service (looking at you Renraku... data services is basically what they do). Either way...if there IS physical machinery running a host in many cases that machinery has absolutely no correlation to the physical location for an associated building. Grampa Olaf's liquor store host is more likely to be run from a computer in Neo-Tokyo than from inside his physical store that happens to be in Seattle.
And... you're still going to want to ignore distance-based Noise.
No, that makes sense. Cross-continental latency is fairly low even in 2020, and even if I try to thread it through real-world logic you could just as easily say that WiFi is a public utility just light streetlights, etc, and that your device handles all the connection/reconnection on the backend
-
Edit: Man, this thread is popular. Missed two posts above that may clarify things.
I happen to know that some of the people likely contributing to the inevitable matrix book have been watching the thread, and are seeing tricky issues that could use some ironing :D
...I’d be surprised if any of the contents of this thread were new news. These are surely well-worn topics.
-
In an attempt to offer some constructive suggestions instead of nit-picks, and in danger of self-promotion to a scandalous degree, I am now going to link to my Shadowrun fan site:
https://paydata.org/setting/matrix_re_fluff/
I’ve been working for a while now on re-writing the Matrix fluff to hew as close as possible to RAW while making as much sense to me as I can manage. I don’t think it’s terrible. I think I have reasonably consistent answers for the most confusing bits. It’s not complete, but most of the bones are there.
-
... Cross-continental latency is fairly low even in 2020, and even if I try to thread it through real-world logic you could just as easily say that WiFi is a public utility just light streetlights, etc, and that your device handles all the connection/reconnection on the backend
Except that... it isn't!
The distance between Seattle and, for example, (Neo-)Tokyo is over 7,000 kilometers. Unless you're flat out ignoring Noise (due to distance) in the case of Hosts, that's well into the 100+ kilometers range and you would suffer -8 dice to hack Grampa Olaf's Liquor Store's host, even if you're inside the building!
-
... Cross-continental latency is fairly low even in 2020, and even if I try to thread it through real-world logic you could just as easily say that WiFi is a public utility just light streetlights, etc, and that your device handles all the connection/reconnection on the backend
Except that... it isn't!
The distance between Seattle and, for example, (Neo-)Tokyo is over 7,000 kilometers. Unless you're flat out ignoring Noise (due to distance) in the case of Hosts, that's well into the 100+ kilometers range and you would suffer -8 dice to hack Grampa Olaf's Liquor Store's host, even if you're inside the building!
I suppose we could resolve it like this- normal users can connect instantaneously, but hacking in 2080 relies on sensitive covert timing channels.
I understand that resolving this with real-word internet is futile, but it is certainly fun
-
Do hosts have a physical location or not?
In this edition it seem as if you have three different types of hosts.
- Virtual matrix hosts (think 'cloud') that does not have a physical location and you always have zero distance to (think SR5 hosts). For inspiration how this could work you can google old 2020 technology such as 'Mesh networking' and 'Distributed computing'
- Physical hosts (think 'on prem') that is perhaps located inside a facility they are protecting. Distance to the facility (or nearest access point) matters
- Offline hosts (think 'air gap') that you need to directly connect to. Distance is always zero once you connect, but you first need to physically travel to it. This is basically the same as a physical host, just that there are no wireless enabled access points to it.
When and where and which you consider being the most common is up to each table.
Personally I will reserve virtual hosts for governments and larger corporations etc. At my table, most hosts that shadowrunners will interact with will be physical hosts (for example residential buildings, factories, local libraries, local police precinct, office buildings, local clubs, local stores etc). I will use offline hosts for paranoid societies, research facilities, hardwired underground military facilities etc.
Of course if you retcon out techno souls, then you must rely on physical network architecture. Routers, switches, cables, and firewalls are all physical.
It seem as if routers and switches and VLANs etc we use today are represented by nestled networks.
Offline networks obvious need to rely on cables, but most other networks will mostly (or even exclusively) use wifi.
Firewalls seem to be represented by the firewall rating of the network.
Note that no matter which type of network we are talking about, once you are inside the network - you are inside.
Type of Host only matters when it comes to how to actually access it (and if you need to consider distance or not).
Once you access it you will use the same matrix actions as you would against any of the other Host 'types'.
So if you want to hack your corner stuffer shack, it's almost guaranteed that its particular host is not running off a server somewhere on its premises...
As I see it;
Even if the physical host is not located inside the facility it is protecting (personally I think it will be most common that it is located on prem, but anyway) a physical host can also have 'access points' at various locations where it make sense from a connectivity point of view (one physical host can probably be used to defend multiple buildings and as long as each building have access points to the network you will be considered to have no distance to the host as long as you are within any of the buildings). If the physical host is located in japan then it will also most likely have a few local access points inside Grampa Olaf's Liquor store (for example I'd imagine that the camera behind the counter, the maglock at the front door, the light switch controlling the lights, the sprinkler system and the two vending machines are probably all acting as local access points for the host they are part of).
"Still ... access points exist, so that people across the globe can log on whever(sic) they want."
-
I suppose we could resolve it like this- normal users can connect instantaneously, but hacking in 2080 relies on sensitive covert timing channels.
I have an answer for this. Edit to add - in my own, homebrew, non-canonical fluff.
I split the Matrix into two: first, a "local mesh" of peer-to-peer mesh-networked nodes, with a range of 1/2km or so but with noticeable signal degradation across that range. Then an "upper grid" or "backbone" of superfast fibre/other sci-fi gunk. The two are linked by "uplink nodes" (aka "beanstalks".)
Traffic hops from device to device around the local mesh, mostly constrained to very short range (only barely better than line of sight.) It's high bandwidth, high frequency wireless. If the traffic is headed to somewhere outside of local mesh range, it goes to an uplink node, where it is swept up onto the backbone. On the backbone, bandwidth is functionally infinite, and you can communicate with anything.
The uplink nodes are high-rating hosts that are very well patrolled by GOD. The backbone is routinely and exhaustively traffic-snooped by GOD and its pet semi-sapient AIs. It's very, very difficult to sneak any hacking traffic on there (in game terms, you get huge Overwatch Score every second.)
But the local mesh is the wild west; a huge, messy soup of devices running different protocols and software versions and each with their own forest of vulnerabilities. This is where hackers can do their thing, but only when they are within local mesh range of their target. And they are disrupted by eg. wireless blocking paint.
Hosts are in two types too. Cloud hosts are attached to the backbone, and are therefore close to impregnable; not only do they have their own defences, but the backbone itself protects them. But the latency is too great to form WANs with cloud hosts. So there are also local hosts, which operate entirely in the context of the local mesh. These are your things that run security for a facility, the R&D terminals, local secure file storage, etc. These are shadowrunner's targets.
In addition, the corps do not 100% trust GOD. They worry that some demiGOD from a different corp will use the traffic inspection to steal their secrets. So there's an entire underground world of hidden local hosts, data couriers with chips in their head, anonymous people with briefcases full of chips, dark fibre links between sites -- all to shuttle around secrets away from the prying eyes of GOD. And all of them vulnerable to our beloved shadowrunners.
I understand that resolving this with real-word internet is futile, but it is certainly fun
I think so too. That's why I've been writing my attempt at the fluff!
-
I have an answer for this.
(which one perhaps should point out is the full matrix rewrite you mentioned earlier, rather than how we think it actually is supposed to work in 6th edition)
-
I have an answer for this.
(which one perhaps should point out is the full matrix rewrite you mentioned earlier, rather than how we think it actually is supposed to work in 6th edition)
Good call - will edit to call that out more explicitly.
-
I assumed that according to the CRB, some of the hosts are attached to physical hardware at a specific location (p. 185). So I thought that when they cover a specific location, they have a physical boundary and cannot be infinite.
So do these physical hosts have their range limited by noise similar to PANs or are they as unlimited as purely virtual hosts?
-
And you don't want to slave everything to your biggest Host because it means you got a single point of failure, plus with that many users policing it becomes a nightmare. Can you imagine Google using a single office building for their entire 100k staff?
This is a poor analogy because physical infrastructure and software infrastructure don't scale the same way. You can easily build distributed systems that function as a single front end but are not a single point of failure as they’re are made up of components with failover. Google has many of these. This is the closest real world equivalent to an SR host, I believe.
-
I assumed that according to the CRB, some of the hosts are attached to physical hardware at a specific location (p. 185). So I thought that when they cover a specific location, they have a physical boundary and cannot be infinite.
So do these physical hosts have their range limited by noise similar to PANs or are they as unlimited as purely virtual hosts?
I believe that it's for the best to treat hosts the same whether they have a physical location or not. That way it doesn't matter if they've got a physical location... and if so, where (in the entire world) that physical location might actually be.
-
I assumed that according to the CRB, some of the hosts are attached to physical hardware at a specific location (p. 185). So I thought that when they cover a specific location, they have a physical boundary and cannot be infinite.
So do these physical hosts have their range limited by noise similar to PANs or are they as unlimited as purely virtual hosts?
I believe that it's for the best to treat hosts the same whether they have a physical location or not. That way it doesn't matter if they've got a physical location... and if so, where (in the entire world) that physical location might actually be.
So, back to my Mars question. Ares operatives could be connected and using the Ares host for protection, instead of having to rely upon a local PAN protected by local Matrix support?
My main thing is, if there is no distance to a host, then no corp team would ever need to worry about PAN security, given that all their gear would be secured by their corp host, no?
-
I assumed that according to the CRB, some of the hosts are attached to physical hardware at a specific location (p. 185). So I thought that when they cover a specific location, they have a physical boundary and cannot be infinite.
So do these physical hosts have their range limited by noise similar to PANs or are they as unlimited as purely virtual hosts?
I believe that it's for the best to treat hosts the same whether they have a physical location or not. That way it doesn't matter if they've got a physical location... and if so, where (in the entire world) that physical location might actually be.
So, back to my Mars question. Ares operatives could be connected and using the Ares host for protection, instead of having to rely upon a local PAN protected by local Matrix support?
My main thing is, if there is no distance to a host, then no corp team would ever need to worry about PAN security, given that all their gear would be secured by their corp host, no?
With regards to your main thing:
yeah. basically. the optimal thing would usually be to just slave everything on-site to the host. However, NPCs aren't immune from doing sub-optimal things. There are any number of reasons why the non-optimal choice is made.
With regards to the Mars example:
The rules don't really represent matrix dead zones very well. The middle of Siberia, the bottom of the Ocean floor, the dark side of the Moon... they all may as well be Mars as far as the Matrix rules are concerned. If a scene takes place where Matrix connectivity is not a given, you're going to have to address it with extra and/or house rules. Maybe the research facility on the bottom of the ocean has a hardline running up to a buoy so all that salt water noise is bypassed. Maybe if you're in Siberia the matrix flat out doesn't work, unless you have a sat dish to contact the nearest matrix signal (up in orbit) and since all your comms must route through it, you're still at -5 dice due to distance to hack someone 1 meter away. Or not. Basically the point is all of these situations are beyond the scope of the matrix basic assumption, and would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. And likely a writer by writer, and/or GM by GM basis...
-
So, back to my Mars question...
While noise due to distance is the most common type of noise:
The most common source of noise is distance from your target
...noise is also caused by being at remote locations:
...but there are other causes... Static zones are ... far away from civilization (the middle of a desert, the north pole, adrift in the Pacific, etc.).
Spam zone or static zone: Rating
If noise is greater than the device rating of the device you use to access the matrix with then you cannot access the matrix (including virtual hosts that you normally have zero distance to):
If noise is greater than the device rating, the device cannot access the Matrix or provide wireless bonuses.
Having said that, I think it is also fair to rule that connections to virtual hosts (that you normally have zero distance to while you are on Earth) will still suffer noise due to distance if you are not on Earth.
-
While noise due to distance is the most common type of noise ... If noise is greater than the device rating of the device you use to access the matrix with then you cannot access the matrix (including virtual hosts that you normally have zero distance to):
Well, now we're back to the interpretation that says a rating 2 commlink in Seattle cannot call someone in Tacoma, because noise from 1-10 km is 3.
-
Well, now we're back to the interpretation that says a rating 2 commlink in Seattle cannot call someone in Tacoma, because noise from 1-10 km is 3.
In 5th edition this was clearly not an issue.
Because of two reasons:
- Noise due to distance in the 5th edition acted as a negative dice pool modifier. And there was no test associated with Send Message to begin with
- While high levels of noise caused the device to lose its wireless bonus functionality (but depending on your reading it could also be read as if it lost its connection to the matrix as a whole) - noise due to distance did explicitly not contribute to this
Having said that, depending on your reading, in 6th edition this might or might not be an issue.
- Unlike 5th edition, in 6th edition it is clear that high levels of noise both mess with your connection and the device's wireless bonuses, not just your device's wireless bonus functionality
- Unlike 5th edition, noise due to distance is not explicitly excluded from this anymore
That connection is lost if noise due to distance is too great seem to be intended (for things such as remote controlling slaved drones).
But I don't know what the intent is when it comes to sending messages or making phone calls between two devices that are on different continents to be honest... perhaps you make long distance calls through global telecom hosts that have access points and relay stations at multiple places throughout the city and also covering all continents?
Perhaps Banshee could shred some light on this one.
-
In 5th edition this was clearly not an issue.
Sure, I was referring to your SR6 quote:
If noise is greater than the device rating of the device you use to access the matrix with then you cannot access the matrix (including virtual hosts that you normally have zero distance to):
If noise is greater than the device rating, the device cannot access the Matrix or provide wireless bonuses.
That doesn't say 'noise due to distance'; and it does say 'cannot access the Matrix'. Your quote seems clear-cut to me that when noise (from any source) is higher than the device rating, the device rating cannot do any Matrix actions, regardless of whether there is a test involved or not. If you can't access the Matrix, I don't see how you can do Matrix things.
-
If you can't access the Matrix, I don't see how you can do Matrix things.
Agreed.
(Which would mean you typically can not connect to a host on Earth if you are located on Mars, which was the question I was trying to answer).
But as I said, maybe the intent for long distance calls is to utilize the fact that hosts can have access points and that there does not seem to be any 'distance' within a host. That way you perhaps only need to have a signal that is strong enough to reach the nearest access point (that is perhaps just a few hundred meters away) rather than a signal that is strong enough to reach the target commlink on that other continent.
Or perhaps it is intended to work in some other way. Perhaps you have an idea of your own?
I am not the author here and the book doesn't say (but I find it plausible that you can make long distance phone calls even 50+ years from now).
-
Perhaps you have an idea of your own?
Nothing beyond "toss big chunks of this out and start over", I am afraid.
(but I find it plausible that you can make long distance phone calls even 50+ years from now).
Not having functioning long distance phone calls is not the kind of dystopia I want, either.
-
I have stated this before elsewhere, but specifically on things like normal comm calls and other everyday issues that come up, it's a matter of being routed through your local service provider.
Making a call to Tokyo from Seattle for most people is a matter of connecting to the the local hub (so most likely zero noise or at least minimal) then that hub (a virtual host most likely) relays the call to it's Tokyo counterpart that then connects to your "target" on the other end.
Now obviously shadowrunnner hackers don't want this potential monitoring that comes with such service so hacking over that distance comes with a severe price... thus we have the noise rules as written.
-
Thank you, it's much clearer to me now. But I would recommend writing these things to the CRB in case of an errata, because it certainly does not follow from several readings.
I have one more question for PANs: The number of slave devices is very limited. But is it possible to connect the whole PAN to another PAN? For example: Team members have their devices protected by their comlinks. And the team hacker then slaves these comlinks to his cyberdeck.
-
Making a call to Tokyo from Seattle for most people is a matter of connecting to the the local hub (so most likely zero noise or at least minimal) then that hub (a virtual host most likely) relays the call to it's Tokyo counterpart that then connects to your "target" on the other end.
Now obviously shadowrunnner hackers don't want this potential monitoring that comes with such service so hacking over that distance comes with a severe price... thus we have the noise rules as written.
Thanks Banshee!
A scenario occurs to me: Face calls an NPC. Keeps them talking (some tense roleplaying, social skill rolls). Meanwhile, the decker traces the call and gets their location. The team scrambles to find the NPC.
Would you allow this at your table? If so, how would you run it / square it with the above?
-
The number of slave devices is very limited. But is it possible to connect the whole PAN to another PAN? For example: Team members have their devices protected by their comlinks. And the team hacker then slaves these comlinks to his cyberdeck.
By the rules (both in SR5 and SR6) your PAN can only hold a very limited number of devices while the intent (both in SR5 and SR6) seem to be that all electronic devices you carry on your body (potentially several hundred) are being part of (and protected by) your PAN.
As an optional rule it have been suggested that we use the limit as written for "smarter" devices (such as drones, vehicles and smart firing platforms etc) and/or "regular" devices that you want to protect even if they are a bit further away from you (where noise set the range).
But that your PAN is also allowed to protect any amount of "regular" devices you carry with you or is in your vicinity (where perhaps data processing x 100 meter set the range).
As another optional rule it have been suggest that we are allowed to daisy chain several commlinks and that the whole network get to use the firewall of the top node device (all team members slave their commlinks to the decker's cyberdeck). But that this also mean that if a potential hacker breach the network they will gain access on all parts of the combined network at once.
If you combine the two optional rules your PAN would be part of the larger team network that the decker is protecting, until you venture too far away from the decker in which case your PAN will be isolated and only protected by your own commlink.
Face calls an NPC. Keeps them talking (some tense roleplaying, social skill rolls). Meanwhile, the decker traces the call and gets their location. The team scrambles to find the NPC.
Would you allow this at your table? If so, how would you run it / square it with the above?
- If the NPC is trying to hide then you take an opposed matrix perception test to spot the NPC's PAN. Noise matters. Distance matters.
- Then you probe the network (since brute force will alert the NPC and you don't want that I guess). This take at the minimum 1 minute (but it have been suggested that probe should take longer than that). Noise matters. Distance matters.
- Once you spot the PAN it doesn't matter if the NPC start to run silent or drive away in a car or whatever. So it doesn't really matter if the NPC hangs up or not, but if the NPC reboot his PAN (or if the NPC walk into a Faraday's Cage or possible if the NPC successfully take the Hide action against you etc) then the trace will probably fail before it even got started - so you still might want to keep the NPC talking until you fully traced the physical location.
- Then you exploit the backdoor into the PAN via the Backdoor Entry action and with that gain admin access on the entire PAN. Noise mattes. Distance matters.
- With admin access on the network you take the Trace Icon action. Noise mattes. Distance matters.
- Done
-
I have stated this before elsewhere, but specifically on things like normal comm calls and other everyday issues that come up, it's a matter of being routed through your local service provider.
Making a call to Tokyo from Seattle for most people is a matter of connecting to the the local hub (so most likely zero noise or at least minimal) then that hub (a virtual host most likely) relays the call to it's Tokyo counterpart that then connects to your "target" on the other end.
Now obviously shadowrunnner hackers don't want this potential monitoring that comes with such service so hacking over that distance comes with a severe price... thus we have the noise rules as written.
This makes the most sense- honestly, most shadowrun systems don't work well at simulating "mundane" things. Someone with a dice pool of 6 will only consistently succeed at the most trivial/mundane things, and vehicle handling is specifically built so that you will only roll if there is fictional risk of failure. I can't think of an edition that models mundane behavior well, if you try incorporate rolling into it.
-
Face calls an NPC. Keeps them talking (some tense roleplaying, social skill rolls). Meanwhile, the decker traces the call and gets their location. The team scrambles to find the NPC.
I bring this up, BTW, because I feel it's a fairly common scenario, it's something I want to let my players do, and I think it's very in keeping with thew tropes of the cyberpunk genre. But it's poorly modelled by SR RAW IMO.
If the NPC is trying to hide then you take an opposed matrix perception test to spot the NPC's PAN. Noise matters. Distance matters.
So immediately, we can only trace calls within a fairly small distance. Which kinda sucks.
Also: assuming the target's commlink wasn't running silent, would you let the decker spot their persona without a test? Regardless of distance?
Once you spot the PAN it doesn't matter if the NPC start to run silent or drive away in a car or whatever. So it doesn't really matter if the NPC hangs up or not,
We've now lost the (rather nice, to my mind) tag-team interaction between a face trying to keep the target talking while the decker makes hacking rolls under time pressure.
but if the NPC reboot his PAN (or if the NPC walk into a Faraday's Cage or possible if the NPC successfully take the Hide action against you etc) then the trace will probably fail before it even got started - so you still might want to keep the NPC talking until you fully traced the physical location.
Assuming you go in via Probe (in 6e) or Hack on the Fly (in 5e), and so do not alert the target, I think this is very unlikely. Rebooting your commlink after every phone call would be pretty impractical, surely.
With admin access on the network you take the Trace Icon action. Noise mattes. Distance matters.
You missed off that, in 5e, Trace Icon only gives you an instantaneous location, plus an ongoing location as long as you maintain a mark. So you're now accumulating OS as you zero in on your target. At least in 6e, that's gone, and you can continue to Trace Icon as long as you can "detect" the target - which I assume means the same thing as "spot".
-
So immediately, we can only trace calls within a fairly small distance. Which kinda sucks.
Define small distance?
With a mid-range rating 3 cyberdeck (MCT 360) running signal scrubber in one of your 6(!) active program slots you can trace targets within 100 km from your current location. Not too shabby if you ask me.
With a high-end cyberdeck and a satellite link you can trace any target via low orbit satellites, no matter distance.
Even with a rating 1 cyberdeck that just cost 24k you can use the signal scream edge action to trace no matter noise levels.
Also: assuming the target's commlink wasn't running silent, would you let the decker spot their persona without a test? Regardless of distance?
In this edition matrix perception work just as regular perception.
You typically don't demand the player to take a test to notice a neon sign
But if the specific neon sign they are looking for is not in the vicinity you might still ask him to take the test.
If the target is trying to hide the test become opposed.
Same with matrix icons really.
Rebooting your commlink after every phone call would be pretty impractical, surely.
It depend on the situation and how paranoid the target is.
Remember back in 2020 you had shady people that not only reboot their phones after each call, they even changed pre-paid SIM-cards or even used cash bought 'burner' phones or both at the same time.... Was it impractical? Yes.
But it also made them harder to trace.
...in 6e, that's gone, and you can continue to Trace Icon as long as you can "detect" the target - which I assume means the same thing as "spot".
In 5th edition it was basically only TMs (with Static Veil and or Cleaner) that could trace a target for more than an hour or so before GOD converged on them.
But yes, in this edition you can typically keep tracing a target for as long as you want.
Or at least until the target reboots. Or you are forced to reboot (because your OS getting getting too high because of other reasons). Or the target specifically Hide against you (this is no longer a hacker only action, but it still require that you have the cracking skill if you wish to do it, and knowing what target you wish to hide from of course). Or the target walks into a Faraday's cage. Or you accidentally walk into a Faraday's cage. There might also be some resonance or sprite ability that can cause this effect. I am sure I missed a few more.
I know where you are going with this, but when they track someone in spy movies they typically keep on tracing for far more than an hour... so I don't see the harm in this change to be honest.