 More about Agents and IC |
  |
 May 22 2006, 05:48 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534  |
@GrinderTheTroll
So you really think thats intentional and players are supposed to figure that out? |
 |
 
|
|
May 22 2006, 06:14 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
As I suggested earlier: responsibility. An Agent is only responsible for one persona's worth of stuff: it's own. The Agent is doing things more or less just like a persona. Very small and reasonably fixed amount of system load. The IC, on the other hand, is responsible for the entire node, regardless of how large the node is. As a node grows into an immense mainframe with thousands of users, the IC's responsibility grows to continue to monitor all of those thousands of users at once. So as a node gets larger, IC's workload increases but an Agent's doesn't. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 22 2006, 06:25 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
I don't know what they've left up to us to figure out or not. Sometimes I've read the SR rules and it's obvious what they mean, then in the areas where it's not explicit I find out it's some other way entirely.
They directly mention the limits on Personas about number of nodes that can be access. However, SR4 makes no direct statement saying that systems/nodes have such limitations. It's implied since it's not part of the the set having the limitation. Do I think Agents should count against a node's Reponse? Yes I do since something has to pay for the bandwidth of any program that's being run on it. If nothing else a system would want unwarrented "virus" programs gone. Problem is the casual nature of an Agent (that is everyone runs them apparently) would grind systems to a halt if their presence counted against a sytems resources. So I am arguing with myself on this. Personally, I'd like to think they are identical but they odd placement of wording and repeat definition with minor inheritence issues make me question that. I have no problem with needing "real world" logical through-and-through to make the game work, hell it's a game. I would just like to know what exactly the authors meant. |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2006, 06:29 PM
Post
#54
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
I know. It's a puzzle to me too. I just see a problem with Agents eating up so many resources. Although as I think about it more and more, it all fits in SR4's desire to streamline the world as it were. I can see that treating them the same does make applying the rules much easier, less exceptions always help that. I guess I'd just like it spelled-out better in SR4. I'm not a stickler for rules, but I do think the details are often overlooked or misread I've been guilty of that myself. What's the most important for me is that my group is clear so there are no misunderstandings. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 23 2006, 06:28 PM
Post
#55
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
Actually my interpretation is following the rules as written. pg 228 Talking about running Agents independently of the hacker..."In this case, the agent doesn't count toward your persona's active program limits like running programs do but it does count as a subscriber towards your subscription limit." No where does it say that loading the agent on the node makes the node have it as an active program. In fact the rules specifically state that it still counts as subscribed to you EVEN WHEN OFFLINE and thus can be tracked. Furthermore it only says that it USES the nodes Response, it doesn't say it becomes an active program for that node. IMO the agent becomes a separate matrix entity with its own persona, just like a hacker. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 23 2006, 06:50 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Ähä, and where does the processor power come from? Outer space?
|
|
|
|
|
May 23 2006, 07:05 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
ugh, this will got round for ever (or hopefully only until unwired gets printed).
|
|
|
|
|
May 23 2006, 07:13 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Or they put out a FAQ. That's really all it would take; five minutes from someone who really knows how it was intended to work telling us how it goes.
I feel like I'm trapped between two horrible scenarios. 1) The developers don't care enough to take the very small amount of time to answer some really big issues in a simple FAQ. or 2) These questions aren't simple, becaues the developers don't know the answers. Sorry, I'm ranting a little, but I think we're extremely overdue to get some of these questions answered, and they're obviously important enough to the core rules that we shouldn't have to wait for another book to expand on them. |
|
|
|
|
May 23 2006, 07:24 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
I agree with you Moon-Hawk.
As far as processing power goes...sure it comes from the moon. It sure as heck doesn't come from the node. Maybe Renraku has developed new Chi-based processors that create extra processing power with good Feng Shui. |
|
|
|
|
May 23 2006, 07:48 PM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
The processing power comes from the host that the Agent is running on, but it takes so little of that power that there is effectively no limit. This is what Grinder (I think it was him) is/was getting at with a difference between IC and Agents. Because IC "expand" with the size of the system they are running on, because they are responsible to oversee everything, they are significantly more complicated than Agents. Therefore, they count towards Response decrease. Agents, OTOH, are basically automated users. Since nothing in the rules talks about a limit to how many users can be logged in at one time, that number must be "effectively" unlimited. Therefore, Agents do not count towards Response limits. If you go the other way (Agents do decrease a Node's Response) then you are open to the possibilities of the "Agent bomb" attack. Even moreso if you allow Agents to be copied. On the Agent copying note: TBRMInsanity and I were talking this one out and he and I agreed that Agents should not be allowed to be copied. Mainly, for game balance reasons. However, if you need a "fluff" type reason, here's one: Agents, being complicated independent programs, have a unique "code structure" for each one, individually. This strong "sense of self" is necessary for the Agent to "move" or copy itself from node to node while retaining all state information, its "thoughts" if you will. The individual "uniqueness" of the code runs throughout, so if you want a true "second" entity, the Agent code must be re-written in its entirety. If you copy the code of an Agent and try to run that second copy 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) the copy will fail to run ("That program is already running"), 2) the previous running copy of the Agent will be deleted and will be "reset" back to the location of the second copy. I might be convinced that if you wish to create another Agent of the same rating as an existing one you can decompile its code (using the same rules as the "pirating software" test) to use as a "basis example." This would provide a dice pool bonus or some reduction in time for creating the second Agent, but not much. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 23 2006, 08:15 PM
Post
#61
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Well what information does a particular drone or Agent need to be on your subscriber list? The Agent must have some piece of information that allows it to find and communicate with your Commlink, be it your Commcode or your Access ID. On a relation to RL level, I never imagined IP address coming into the SR rules anywhere. I saw your Commcode as a combination phone number/email address (I'm pretty sure the rules state as much). Your Access ID I see more like your MAC Address. IP Addresses can and often do change depending on many things but a device's MAC Address is always unique. My end point is: if you have an Agent on your subscriber list, it can be used to Trace back to your Commlink. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 23 2006, 08:51 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Mdynna, this is all specualtion. RAW says:
IC = Agent (in every game respect) device = node = matrix host IC/Agents use response in EVERY device/node (depending where they are running on). everything else is house ruling, which is ok, but do not try to make something RAW which is not. I think it is agood house rule to give "real" matrix nodes independent real response and only an "effective" response rating of 1-6, but thats a house rule. What I do NOT like is this distinction between IC and agents. Concerning agent copying: I have no problems with this game balance wise. Agents do not help in secrecy and secrecy is what hacking is all about. To the agents/trace busines: Ok, this is a valid point. (Though I would allow agents to "report back" to some e-mail box somewhere which is then accessed by the hacker, so that there is no direct connection between agent and comlink.) |
|
|
|
|
May 23 2006, 10:57 PM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Here's the thing: if #2 goes away, I have no problem with #1 & #3. Under SR3 a Deck (personal computer/electronic device) had the limitation of Active Memory for simultaneous running programs, Matrix Hosts had no such limitation, they could run whatever the heck they wanted. I believe that the Response Decrease rules were a conversion of the "spirit" of the previous Active Memory and were never intended to apply to Matrix "Hosts." I refuse to believe that Matrix tech between 2064 and 2070 regressed to the point where only 6 enemy or friendly IC/Agents can run simultaneously before performance is affected. The move to the Wireless Matrix didn't replace all the old hardware, it merely created Wireless access to that hardware (this is how I see it), so I think it's ridiculous that the same computer systems are now somehow significantly less powerful. I refuse to believe that the whole Matrix runs on modified Meta Link Commlinks (that is the cheapeast way to get a Rating 6 Node right?). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2006, 12:12 AM
Post
#64
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
This paragraph is specificly for matrix nodes running IC. Its not about any low level devices or comlinks. Its about full blown matrix hosts. I would not use this rule either, but it has to be crystal clear, that this (full blown matrix hosts have infinite resopnse and only efective responsefor game mechanics) is a house rule then. And one further note: Forget the fluff timeline consistency. We have a brandnew ruleset here. There is no reason to argue anything using timeline arguments (old cyberware, old matrix, old whatever). We have a complete reality backswitch. The fluff about Crash 2.0 is there just to make it bearable. Argueing about dying characters because of changed essence rules are sensless. As is arguing about matrix nodes after and before the rule changes. (Reality backswitch = it has always been as it is now in the rules) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2006, 06:44 AM
Post
#65
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,925 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 948 |
Well, according to the RAW any device that can be accessed through the matrix is a node, therefore the rules on page 228 DO apply to both commlinks, devices and full blown matrix hosts. Since each node is a device in its own right I do believe that one has to think in the SR3 line with different nodes. A corporate system for example is not 1 full blow server/commlink – it is a network of nodes that share programs between them. By the RAW programs take up response if they run too many programs and I see that as a good thing. My hacker for example will never run things at maximum response since he wants flexibility, but he can still run up to nine programs including two agents running three programs each. Sure, they are all rating four but in the end that’s just one lousy D6 I loose if I want to go number crunching. Corporate hosts and matrix hosts will probably very seldom run more than 4-5 programs since they don’t need to run many active programs. Most of these nodes are storage devices and the only things they will probably run is Analyze and 3-4 IC programs. Now, let’s get nasty and say they run rating 6 node and decide to have 11 active programs, that’s -1 response. What could we face as a hacker? 1.Analyze 2.Agent (Analyze,Stealth,Attack,Armour) 3.Agent (Analyze,Stealth,Attack,Armour) 4.Agent (Analyze,Stealth,Attack,Armour) 5.Agent (Analyze,Stealth,Attack,Armour) 6 IC: (Analyze, Track, Medic, Armour) 7 IC: (Analyze, Track, Medic, Armour) 8 IC: (Analyze, Track, Medic, Armour) 9 IC: (Analyze, Track, Medic, Armour) 10: IC: (Stealth, Attack, Black Hammer, Blackout) 11: IC: (Stealth, Attack, Black Hammer, Blackout) The Agents and IC are all rating 4 and roll 8D6 each and they ALL run Analyze constantly. Do we really NEED a higher rating on most civilian systems? Also, remember that they could be running other agents/IC from another node and roam inside this node without taking up its system response. Also, the node might have firm instructions only to run a specific set of programs and will delete any illicit program uploaded that does not fit its instructions. Hopefully we will get a lot more information about how node networks would look like in unwired. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 24 2006, 08:52 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
another option is that a response decrease only affects a persona thats being generated by said node. basicly, as long as the node isnt supporting a persona, the response will not flex at all no matter how many agents, IC or programs there are running on it.
allso, this more or less require that the response decrease only affects the personas initiative. it does not reduce the response for setting the max system/os rating. therefor, no death spiral. so therefor, you cant DDOS a office node by loading up 1001 agents. and it can in theory support any number of active IC (sure, turn it into fort knox. why not just remove the whole matrix while your at it). basicly all this stands and fall on how to read the response decrase from "software overload". and right now, i can think of atleast 2 way to read it, and from that we have all kinds of branching interpetations... |
|
|
|
|
May 24 2006, 11:03 AM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,283 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 7,398 |
Umm... I'll point out that Reality Filter will effectively double the number of IC you can run without decreasing performance, as well as the number of programs the IC can run.
I think we can figure out from this why sculpted systems are so popular amongst the Big 10. |
|
|
|
|
May 24 2006, 02:31 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
and that alone proves that response is just as much about how quickly and effortlessly the user and the "node" interact as it is about pure hardware speed...
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2006, 04:05 PM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
I've got it! IC=Agents and Agents=IC right? An Agent uses the Node's Response as its Response limiter, because it runs on the node right? So if IC=Agents then IC can be swapped for Agent in the sentence above. The Agent bomb attack will not work. The system will simply say "I can't run that." Done. A node will not run more IC than its Response can handle, and it will not run more "intruding" Agents than it can handle. Done. Rule exploit plugged. Everyone is happy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2006, 04:31 PM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
If only it were that easy. An agent running admin privileges could break that rule fairly easily. A node could have a rule "No more than X agents running, period," but then the agent/hacker with admin could rewrite that rule. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2006, 04:43 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Who says what an Admin can do? The GM can. Period. Or, the system is programmed to simply shutdown and reset a Node when its performance starts to drag (like have 15 Agents running on it). If you go with Admin's having that kind of power then can they shut down IC and cancel system Alerts at their whim? Maybe, MAYBE if the hacker didn't cause an Alert hacking in. Even then, I don't think an Admin can do that much. Corp security designer aren't stupid, they know an Admin account can be Hacked.
I've never bought into the "an Admin account can do absolutely anything" rule. As I said in another host: if anything, system security should be watching the actions of Admin accounts closer than regular users. Think about how anti-virual heuristic engines work. They look for an ususal amount of powerful, low-level system interrupts and such. Then they start to say, "Why are you doing this?" |
|
|
|
|
May 24 2006, 05:25 PM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
I'll bite. Which operating system does not allow an admin (root) user to modify anything, including the system files? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2006, 05:27 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
The OS of "A Shadowrun Hacker shouldn't get a free ride just because they made the Firewall + 6 Threshold"
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2006, 05:35 PM
Post
#74
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
We're making it RAW because the RAW rules are so vague that it can be interpreted two different ways. Just because you interpret shitty rules differently doesn't make your view point any better. They seriously need to come out with FAQs. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 24 2006, 06:01 PM
Post
#75
|
|||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
windows 2000 or later, if you screw around a bit with the settings. linux, with the SElinux stuff added. and btw, thats a NSA creation... basicly, admin today as a account just like any other. its just that by default its the master controller of all things on the os. but if you play around with the settings, it can be just another account... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th August 2025 - 12:56 AM |
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.