My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Response and IC, I am confused |
 May 4 2006, 09:15 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534  |
Mainfraimes are not nodes in SR4, because rating 6 nods have restrictions that no mainframe would have. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, a device 100 times bigger than a small comlink can easily have a rating of 50 and be cheaper than a comlink.
But still: Can anybody resolve the "why not load the maximum number of agents at first node hit" problem? |
 |
 
|
|
May 4 2006, 09:17 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
@mdynna
Usually though a big iron system will set a choke point on system resources used by an individual login or virtual machine. A node isn't exactly that, but the reasons for limiting the resources remain largely applicable. In some ways comlinks, in regard to the things that Voran mentioned, make a lot more sense under a mainframe type situation than with a handheld commlink. Because the commlink already has this slicing up of resources happening where just having multiple logins by Agents on a commlink appears to pull resources out of nowhere. @Glayvin34 The rules kind of hint at on page 227, but don't come right out and say, that an Agent that is acting on it's own must be in the node it is performing its action in. Although it gets a little murkier with things like Track, i'd make the assumption there is the action is being performed in the node where the target icon is located. Not on the path leading back to the physical location, which would require the Agent to node hop back along the datatrail. @Moon-Hawk Being able to manage enormous numbers of I/O devices is certainly something that is a characteristic of a mainframe type system. Acting as the communication hub for perhaps thousands of user logins at one time. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 09:23 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
No rules exist in SR4 for anything other than a node. Anything aside from what's in SR4 will have to be House Ruled. Yeah it sucks having to wait for source books to come into play, but there are lots of good ideas in this thread. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 09:28 PM
Post
#29
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
*sigh* First off, as pointed out about the downside of bogging down the system you are suppose to be protecting:
Second, loading an Agent is a action, and since you apparently don't have the book i'll look it up.....page 219, it is a Complex action. So one IC Agent loaded per IP. I and others have mentioned this before in this thread. What is the problem? You just don't -like- the answer, or what? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 4 2006, 09:32 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
*snip*
I'm not sure if I understand this part of your question. Do you mean "why not dump all the Agents into a node once the system's on alert?" If so, then it's a matter of preference on how the target would respond. I imagine most systems wouldn't unleash an army of Agents unless there was good reason or unless the node in question is paranoid like that. You can dump large amounts of Agents at a time with enough IP, but you'd suffer response/rating degradation if you get too many in the same node. EDIT - I suppose other nodes could release Agents in response to an alert and they could move into the invaded node. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 09:50 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Yes, I want a justification for a security sheet like thing, where IC is triggered only after a certain number of node ihts. With increasing security (more IC, alert, shotdown . . .) as the node hits increase. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 09:54 PM
Post
#32
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Congratulations, you just wrote it down! Now go forth and be fruitful! P.S. As has been mentioned a few times you can wait for Unwired to come out with the port of the relavent info. Or hey, why not just go and port it yourself. Past canon seems to be sort of a justification, yes? Page 228 does mention different flavours of IC based on their program loadout. EDIT: I'm pretty sure I've seen someone doing a translation of the old Tar Baby and such into program loadouts. EDIT2: :rotfl: Ya, it was in that thread i linked for you. The first response post. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 4 2006, 09:59 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
That's a interesting idea. IC are independant Agents that can move around node to node. But that's going to introduce a bit of a delay (request for IC goes out, load occurs, IC moves in). They'll too still bog the crap out of the node they are coming to the aid of when they move in. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 10:04 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
Here is something I read in the Linking and Subscribing section:
If you apply that to the node (from someone's commlink to the access gateway to a AAA host) you are limited to at most 12 IC accessing/protecting any one node, less since it is connecting to other nodes. For someone's commlink, I would count any cyber that is accessing wirelessly, like cybereyes transmitting visuals to another team member or a smartlink to a weapon without a skinlink, against the subscription limit. A drone could be activated, issued instructions and then unsubscribed to act on its own, no longer counting against the limit. For a rating 5 network gateway, it would likely have its own IC (say 2 for detecting hackers), subscribing to 2-3 nodes and multiple IC actively running on other nodes within the network (up to 5-6 other IC possible, takes at least a CT to show up) that it can call for backup if an alert is triggered. I would have all the programs that the IC can use running on the node it is loaded on, so IC and programs they use would count against response, however you decide to handle major hardware. Personally I don't see a AAA corp's system slowing down if it is running only 6 programs. I would consider any "node" to be a mesh network of equivalent devices hardwired together with its own gateways, allowing a much higher number of programs, but still limiting active subscriptions to System x 2 (so 12 for any rating 6 system). But this is all how I would do it, so as someone else already said, just do what seems reasonable. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 10:15 PM
Post
#35
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
Reminds me of Matrix 2 when all the Agent Smith's started coming into the area a little at a time... then Whammo! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 4 2006, 11:03 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Ok, just stop and think about this whole "everything is a node with the same rules" concept for a moment. As has been pointed out, the cheapest/most efficient way to make a Rating 6 Commlink is to buy a Meta Link and upgrade everything up to 6. Right? If a suped-up Meta Link can do exactly every other device can do, then why not do it? You know corps are always looking for the most cost effecient way to do things. So, they would use the "upgraded Meta Link" method. Think about it. Renraku's AI Research Host is a modified Meta Link Commlink. Aztechnology's Blood Magic Library is a modified Meta Link Commlink. News headline: "THE ZURICH ORBITAL HOST HAS JUST UPGRADED ITSELF TO A META LINK COMMLINK"
Meta is now the most powerful Megacorp in the world because EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD RUNS ON THEIR COMMLINKS. "Everything is a node?" "Corp hosts use the same rules as everyone's Commlink?" No. My SR4 Matrix is not built on legions of Meta Link commlinks. What's yours? |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 11:09 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Meh, the corps probably would make it cheaper than the Meta since they don't need the roll out keyboards and other interfaces for most things. Now we know why it only took 5 years to upgrade all the tech, though. Just billions and billions of skeletal commlinks interconnected.
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 11:16 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
In today's world it is cheaper in terms of straight money to buy a junk computer and upgrade it. It doesn't happen in corporations for a few reasons:
1) you incur more costs in terms of the time it takes people to build these computers for you 2) large computer companies offer discounts for large purchases 3) many managers who aren't tech savvy don't think that a hoemade computer can be as good as a brand name one In SR you also come across situations where many of the bigger corporations either manufacture or have ties to people that manufacture computers. If you own an assembly line, building name brand computers is even cheaper than buying and upgrading. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 11:24 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 06 From: San Francisco Member No.: 8,275 |
My question is still about the Load that an Agent has. Say you've got a Response 6 ICberg running 2 Agents and you don't want to decrease the response, does the program list look like this:
1.Agent1 2.Agent2 3.Armor 4.Attack 5.Stealth or like this? (with a -1 response) 1.Agent1 2.Armor1 3.Attack1 4.Agent2 5.Armor2 6.Attack2 Does an Agent use programs that the node is running or does it use its own load and can't share programs? Because if they use programs on the node, then one program is taking multiple actions each Turn (which I guess could be possible). |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 11:42 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
I would run it as option 1, each agent has access to all 3 programs. I see it as multiple users reading the same part of a cache to queue an instruction. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 11:46 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
It's not the Agent's rating that degrades the node (although the Agent is capped at the node Rating), it's the number of Agents running in a node that degrade it. The Agent's Reponse equals that of the node it occupies. A Rating 3 node can have 6 Agents running and any Agent will function at a MAX Rating of 3 even if >3. If the Agent moved into a Rating 5 node, then that node could handle 10 Agents before degrading and the Agent would function at a MAX Rating of 5 even if >5. IIRC the limit to how much you can load into an Agent, is its Rating x2 in Program Ratings. So Agent 6 could have Trace-3, Attack-3. Can anyone verify this? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 11:55 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Did you mean Trace-6, Attack-6?
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 12:02 AM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 06 From: San Francisco Member No.: 8,275 |
First, from page 212: "Response may be affected if you run too many programs. For every x number of programs you have actively running, where x = System rating, your Response is reduced by 1. So if you’re running 10 programs with a System 5, your Response will be reduced by 2." So at each multiple of your system you take a -1 to response. It's that second part that I'm wondering about. Does an Agent's Load count against the total number of programs running? It says on page 228 that "Agents can be loaded up with copies of your programs so that the agent may employ them on its own. If an agent is acting independently, any programs it’s carrying must be active, and so may affect its Response." Now it seems to be that the Agent runs the program on whatever node it's on, affecting response. So if you've got the aforementioned attack IC, you'll need it to run about 3 programs to be effective in cybercombat, plus the fact it's an Agent, so that means one attack IC with Attack, Stealth and Armor takes up 4 programs. Does that not sound right to anyone? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 01:23 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 06 From: San Francisco Member No.: 8,275 |
On 232 there's that "Simultaneous Combat in Multiple Nodes" section, it seems to indicate that you can get attacked through any node you're subscribed to. So if you're in a node with 10 ICbergs subscribed to it, like any high-security "Mainframe" (I use the word lightly) is likely to have, then each of the ICbergs attacks you.
So I guess being subscribed to a node and being in the node is the same thing for personas? Agents can enter a node so if they're tracked the track just goes to whatever node they are running on (I think). |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 01:33 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
Here is how I see it.
System/Response 6 node running the following programs: 1. Agent Attacker (Pilot 4) 2. Agent Detector (Pilot 6) 3. Agent Hunter (Pilot 5) 4. Attack-6 5. Analyze-6 6. Blackout-6 (node loses 1 response, now at 5) 7. Stealth-6 8. Armor-6 9. Track-6 10. Exploit-6 11. Decrypt-6 Node is now effectively System/Response 5 and Programs only get max of 5 dice. Another program or agent would reduce response again, down to 4. Now the Agents are loaded as such: Attacker - Defend node -- Attack, Blackout, Armor, Stealth (-1 response for 4 programs with a 4 pilot) Equivalent to a 4 system(pilot), 4 firewall, 4 response persona (node response at 5, -1 for programs), programs limited to 4 by Pilot rating Detector - Detect intrusion and locate source of intruder -- Analyze, Stealth, Track, Exploit, Decrypt (no response loss due to programs, but pilot is limited to 5 effectiveness by node response of 5) Equiv. to a 5 sys, 5 firewall, 5 response (limited by 5 response node), programs at 5 Hunter - Defend node or attack intruder's node -- All programs listed above (8 programs, -1 response loss for 5-9 programs loaded) Equiv. to a 4 sys, 4 firewall, 4 response persona, programs at 4 Obviously this would not be an ideal loadout, but I was trying to cover as many situations as possible. What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 01:45 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
Backing away from the exact mechanics for a second...
If I'm hacking a server, and see some alert flags pop up, but want to stave off the inevitable for a few rounds while my team gets out, can I do something as simple as uploading a few agents and then ordering them to go out and create havoc in other nodes on the system, then uploading a few more? It sounds like once I get into a system, I can basically DOS it with agents. The IC and deckers will be so busy tracing down my agents, that they won't be able to get control of the system. I probably won't either, but this is a "run away" tactic, not a take and hold ground tactic. Also, was there any mention of party ice in the BBB? I don't remember seeing it. I think it would need some kind of special treatment under the "stacking" rules discussed here. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 01:47 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 06 From: San Francisco Member No.: 8,275 |
Yeah, Damaleon's model seems to be right. But about the Hunter Agent, do Agents lose response for the programs they have loaded? They're not running the programs themselves, the node is. All that's in the book is the programs "must be active, and so may affect its Response" line on page 228, I think that's referring to the Response of the node the Agent is running on, not the Agent itself.
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 01:56 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 06 From: San Francisco Member No.: 8,275 |
Ooo, good one. You could have a Comm full of Agents that all run out and slow down whatever node is running the IC that is coming after you. If they were all loaded up with programs, they could go and run them all on the ICberg protecting the system you're infiltrating, and the Mainframe's Response would bottom out. That's kinda cheap, though. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 02:02 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
I read the independent agent and payload rules like the agent is a mini system, running on the node and granted access to programs also running on the node. I see the agent being able to handle only so many threads before it loses efficency. Basicly it is only smart enough to handle access to so many programs before its logic routines take longer to decide what to do, like in turn based strategy games when the computer has more and more units to control and more places to attack you from. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 02:10 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
Yeah, I would agree with Big D, as long as you can hack the proper access needed to load an Agent on their system, it should be possible. I would restrict running Agents to security or admin access, so it takes longer to hack in, but if you manage to do that, you should be able to use their system's resources against them.
I wouldn't allow you to do it immediately though, except for what programs/IC/agents are already available to the node your on. If for some reason there is no agent available to that node, it isn't rated high enough for you, I would make you spend several actions transfering some of your's to the node before you could activate them. Not a problem when the system isn't on alert, but it can take precious IPs away if you're being attacked, which is a suitable penalty if you don't think ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 02:44 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.