The biolock isn't the only type of firearms user authentication out there. IZv1 p.110 lists DNA-scanning triggers (which is my interpretation of the "bio signature" used by the biolock), voice activation, a manual password/PIN, and a HyperObject-based password/PIN as possibilities for how a given weapon may be secured. Given that there's already been talk in the US of making such systems mandatory on privately-owned firearms (even though they're not readily available yet) and that the manual password/PIN is listed with no price, I'm comfortable assuming that a manual password/PIN system is standard-issue on all legally-purchased firearms. Biolocks, voiceprints, and HyperObject handshakes are upgraded authentication systems which are more secure, harder to crack, and more convenient to use.Willard skrev:There is a biolock accessory that prevents others from using the weapon, and that's supposedly standard with law enforcement. I'm pretty sure none of us have it on our weapons, however, and I seriously doubt most common criminals will either.nDervish skrev:Specific to IZ, most weapons know who owns them and will refuse to work for anyone else (IZ1 p.110; based on those prices, a manual PIN or password is standard) until you can get them hacked to accept a new owner.
Granted, gangbangers probably didn't purchase their weapons legally, which leaves the question open of whether they're more likely to have the authentication system reprogrammed to recognize them or to disable it altogether.
Definitely. It's just a matter of finding them and getting them to trust you...Willard skrev: Even the locked stuff we could try to hack ourselves, or pay someone else a modest fee to try. There's got to be a big industry doing just that.
The actual statement is "Hacking a drone is a damn hard thing to do." The descriptions of drone hacking there (on p. 4 of drones.pdf) all seem to be talking about actually taking control of the drone or reprogramming it, in which case the drone's owner can just reboot it, as you said. But I expect that blocking the signal entirely (causing it to revert to either glide mode or standby mode) would be less difficult.Willard skrev: What I recall reading is that hacking drones is supposed to be really hard. They operate on another frequency or something, specifically designed to resist this sort of tampering. And if they do get through it's easy enough to just reset. Of course this doesn't cover signal jammers and what not, only actual hacking.
Signal jamming is also mentioned on that page, but, sadly, no mechanics are given. It's discussed solely as a narrative device.
Well, let's see... They were firing standard assault rifle rounds at you, so their weapons weren't using any fancy ammo. They consistently managed to miss Mal, aside from the one shot that almost took him out, so it's a safe bet they weren't using any kind of super-detection scopes. Etc. Their weapons in all ways behaved just like regular everyday assault rifles, so that's a pretty good clue that they weren't anything special, even without taking into account that you were looking at the guys when you attacked them and, even without an app to tell you the exact make and model, you would have gotten a good idea of roughly what kind of guns they had.jeronimooo skrev:since none of us is carrying the app that identifies the material used to shoot on us, how else but looting are we supposed to know if one of them was carrying something worth our while, like a unique weapon of some sorts...
...except for the minor detail that I seem to recall someone even commenting at the table that they would be out for a couple hours. If this was really the primary concern, then I think I'd be more worried about them playing dead and jumping up to shoot me when I approached them to take their weapons than I would be about them getting up and pursuing me after I leave.jeronimooo skrev:and especially if those gangers weren't dead, it would make serious sense for us to disarm themeven if only to dump their weapons somewhere later...
If that's a concern that the rest of the group shares, then we can definitely increase the cost of ammo tokens, but have them refresh at no cost whenever you return to home, your base, or anywhere else there's a stockpile of ammo that you can restock from. You'd basically be buying a limit on how much ammo you can carry at a time and then all ammo is free up to that limit. (And no a pile of still-warm corpses is not "a stockpile of ammo".)jeronimooo skrev:besides, it could still be a good idea to grab their grenades and ammo, maybe not for Mal and/or Almighty but definitely for the rest of the group, no?
I would much rather give you unlimited free reloads than have a pack of PC ghouls roaming the streets of Chicago and stripping the bodies of the dead.
If one or more of them happened to be wearing chameleon cloaks, that would have been rather obvious when you shot at them and saw that parts of them appeared transparent.jeronimooo skrev:And if one or more of them happened to be wearing Chameleon cloaks, I wouldn't be surprised if those got picked up as a backup in case some copper confiscates Ryder's at some point...
God45 skrev:I am kind of uneasy about the looting. There is the tracking, but more than that it seems really immoral. We really shouldn't steal from the dead if we are the good guys.
If we are captured or something we might steal a gun from a guard or something, but other than that I think it makes us look evil.
Yep. Those aren't the only points I was trying to make in my original looting rant, but they're among them.bladerunner_35 skrev: A) I don't want this to become the normal tiresome lootfest.
Oh, there definitely is. But it's a lot harder to find buyers for a weapon that's still locked to a specific user.bladerunner_35 skrev: B) If for some reason "we" need to loot bodies we should be able to (I don't buy that there's isn't an illegal market for illegal/looted weapons).
I had a feeling...bladerunner_35 skrev: Ryder won't put up with much looting. Both because of the risk and because of his morals.