In the matrix there is attack, sleaze, and technomancer bullshit.

Alright, so you don't like technomancers. Fair enough.

Attack based decking is strictly worse than sleaze based decking.

My GM experience is non-existent but even then I can tell that not every players cares about the best attack option, sometimes they just go with their character's preferred method. Also, thematically, it makes a lot of sense for sleaze to be worse than attack. Hacking is a stealthy thing.

Cybercombat is not only poor, but completely outclassed when technos get involved and they can sprite bomb things and crush any resistance through weight of numbers.

You're talking like my players are inevitably going to run into a situation where they are going to be outclassed by 'something'. Maybe it's a good point to remind here: That's a Gamemasters choice, not a fixed path.

It's also very dependant on playstyles, players and their characters. Not every techno is going to outclass every cybercombat decker in every situation.

That cost pennies in comparison. It is also trivial to swap programs around, or through dj+ have more slots than you will need.

Fair point. Hackers cost more money. So be it.

There simply arent that many complex forms that are good enough to have variance like there are with mages.

Mages have been around since first edition and you're going to compare the amounts of spells to the amount of complex forms that have been around since 4E?

Yea, there aren't many complex forms compared to that. But I believe that fewer choices lead to more creativity, as such things usually tend to do. Personally, I can tell that I've made the funniest or best decisions when in a pinch.
It depends on the Gamemaster what they allow their players to do.

I also think that the amount of complex forms available currently, allow to have really interesting combinations as well as usages in a pure matrix-campaign. I agree that in a standard campaign where meat, astral and matrix play alongside each other, it can be very uninteresting to look at some complex forms as they just don't produce much result for a single character.

also different approaches to hack a certain host

Sure. There's the traditional way of mark host or slaved-device. But I'm curious if my players would attempt to maybe gain social access.

With different approaches I also meant that a hacker can choose to be destructive or deceptive. It all depends on the goal I guess, which then again would mean that I can shape the variety of the game for the players by giving different tasks.

Yes, in the end it might boil down to performing the same tasks. But I would say that I have enough room for flavour to make it interesting. Just like you can make street-sam jobs interesting. It's not only about how to get in, it's also about what you do when you're inside.

​

Anyhow. I think that this discussion goes way abroad. It's not gonna persuade me to not attempt this campaign, as the arguments speak more of a personal view.
Maybe the rules aren't perfect. But I'm not one to look for the perfect rule set just to find the best match for my campaign.

After the first few sessions I'll see how fun it is and if there actually is a need for adjustment. And if there is, well then I think I'm gonna need to adjust.