 Protecting drones from hackers |
  |
 Jan 7 2007, 09:25 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445  |
Agent - Generic muti-program platform utility for use in the Matrix
Pilot - Specialised multi-program platform utility designed specificly for a set device (Drone) |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 7 2007, 09:25 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
No. That's why Agents have a Pilot rating - not Pilots having an Agent rating.
..get some sleep, man. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 7 2007, 09:53 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
We are talking about Drone Pilots which are a combination of agent plus OS. Not about Pilot Rating. So, I'm afraid, agent is the basic entity. If you were right, agents would, like pilots, have a system rating and be, like pilots, an OS. But they dont. Please consult the relevant rules.
No relevant comments? Maybe you should wake up? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 7 2007, 10:01 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Serbitar, I mostly agree with you, but I want to address your questions anyway: 1) Pilot is used for the obvious reason of identifying drone systems in the book. Perhaps that's not really needed, but I thought it looked a little smoother in the vehicle entries and seeing a System rating would have confused me at first. 2) System generally implies a computer system, doesn't it? Pilot has its own implication. Yes, it's just another SYSTEM once you read the wireless world rules, but it's pretty easy to identify the differences between a commlink and a citymaster. Also, we have a general idea of what the citymaster's "system" was made to do and generally speaking the GM is going to be limiting its functions only to these vehicle-related uses. Again, not really necessary per se. But a reason nontheless. 3) All agents are programs, right? And systems are limited to how many programs they can be running simultaneously? Aren't programs easier to crash, too? And if Pilots were agents (instead of System), then they would function as IC. Do they? Should they? (I'm asking these as questions, because I'm really not familiar with the way agents work in the RAW. I haven't had any in my game yet.) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2007, 02:03 AM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
a drone's pilot rating is part of the OS. therefore it does not draw on the OS's resources. additionally, it also means that the drone's pilot cannot move from device to device, but is rather stuck in place. there you have it; differences between a pilot program and an agent. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2007, 07:14 AM
Post
#31
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
No. There is no such term as 'Drone Pilot', and Pilots are defined as a decision making versions of System. Then Agents are defined as independent Programs with Pilots...
Where did you made this up from?
RTFM. Agents are Nodes themselves and can load (and run) Programs. They can even stora Data within them. By the rules, you need System to run Programs - so Agents clearly have System... as they have Pilot, and Pilot is defined... yaddayadda. See the picture?
The relevant, though not really polite comment would be: Stop pulling general assumptions out of you ass about understanding: The only thing that is obvious from this thread is: You don't understand neither Pilots nor Agents. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 8 2007, 09:28 AM
Post
#32
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
--------------
Agents are nodes??? Maybe you should rethink this assumptions pulling thing. Please see the definition of nodes further up in this thread or page 216 of SR4. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 8 2007, 11:19 AM
Post
#33
|
|||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Q.E.D. - no such game-term as 'Pilot Rating'. Indeed, Pilot is an Attribute, and, as the rule you quoted states, Agents are derived from Pilots.
Yes. They feature Firewall and Pilot(=System), and thus are accessible. That's what you call a virtual machine. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jan 8 2007, 11:41 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445 |
RvD, your last statement is incorrect. An Agent has a rating of 1 to 6 as a whole. It then uses this number as a limiter on all its attributes, based off what attributes the node it is currently running on has.
A 3/3/3/3 system running a rank 4 agent will have that agent run at 3/3/3/3 for all intensive perposes. If you threw a rank 2 agent on it, it would have the attribute values of 2/2/2/2. If you have a rank 4 agent on a 3/5/2/4 node, the agent would have attributes of 3/4/2/4. (arbitrary numbers for example perposes only) The agent itself does not have a System or Firewall of its own, and damn sure doesnt have Response nor Signal due to those two attributes being hardware. Lacking the last two attributes, on its own, means that an agent is not a node. It is though, a multi-program platform able to 'think' on its own to a certain degree. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 8 2007, 01:06 PM
Post
#35
|
|||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Let's see...
As Pilot replaces System... yaddayadda. Agents don't have their own hardware attributes, but they do have the software ones. Of course, some are limited on Response... |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 8 2007, 04:44 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Make it pilot attribute then. What I mean is that it explicitly mean something else instead of the whole pilot. If Agents are derived from Pilots, I really wonder how Pilots can be a "special type of OS" (SR4 p. 216) . Agents are not described as OS at all. You can say what you want, but the picture is lacking somewhere. And again, I am talking not about any background knowledge (concerning your virtual machine example, which might be valid). I am talking purely about rules consistency and understandability. If agents were virtual machines (and thus node like) this would have to be indicated somewhere in the rules, but it isnt. And there would have to be rules how a virtual node was handled (whoch dont exist). Again I can only point to the confusion in this thread as an example. When agents were nodes (and they are definitely no nodes as defined by SR4), another question would arise: Why are personae without an agent rating not nodes? Why do personae use the ratings of the nodes they are running on and agents dont? What is the difference except that the "intelligence" part is a brain on the one hand and a software program, on the other? I can see that the interpretation of agents as virtual nodes makes sense, but the open questions that arise (why doesnt pilot have firewall if an agent has? are you able to hack the virtual node directly, or do you have to hack the mother node first? can you upgrade the virtual nodes system independently from its pilot rating?) are not handled by RAW at all. The concept is in my opinion to complex to be intended for a basic rulebook. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 8 2007, 05:58 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
..what do you mean by 'the whole Pilot'? It's nothing more than Pilot.
Yet they have an OS to run Programs on.
There is no persona without node.
Uh... it's exactly that way for agents.
Because the rules say so and use Device ratings for the rest.
Sounds like hopping nodes to me.
You can't, as the only remaining attribute for Agents (Firewall) is set to an automated value. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Jan 8 2007, 06:48 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
I mean Pilot without OS
Once could equally well say, the programs run on the nodes OS, but are only managed by the agent.
No. As you tried to explain, agents have their own independent system and firewall. A persona uses the system and firewall ratings of the node they are running on. Agents dont. A Persona running on a system 5 node would have system 5. A rating 3 agent would have system 3. Thats a difference.
In an agrument about rules, the phrase "because rules say so" is not really a reason.
Yes, it would, if thought through. But still, there is nothing about that even remotely indicated in the rulebook.
Not System, too? As you explained? Your node interpretation can be evolved into a consistent explanation. But the rulebook does not support it. If the node interpretation was the intention than it did a really really bad job. (Even worse than I now think it does). |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jan 8 2007, 07:01 PM
Post
#39
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 4-January 07 Member No.: 10,539 |
Thank you for the easy to follow list, and in fact that I avoided the other thread was it seemed to be a place for special tricks and other things not accounted for or authorized by the rules. Not that that's a bad thing, but my GM is somewhat of a stickler. Anyway, thanks again. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 8 2007, 07:03 PM
Post
#40
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
That's a nice theory, but Pilot is defined as OS+decisionmaking...
One could say that the sky is pink, too: That would render Agents useless - I leave it up to your understanding to find out why that is the case.
The point is - where does the Persona run, where does the Agent?
Nice one - there is no need for a 'reason'. It's defined that way and one could assume that it was done for the same reason as Device ratings.
As hopping nodes is defined broad enough, it is.
Well, once more: Pilot replacing System, yaddayadda.
It is consistend enough for the part that is supportted by the book to be used.
How generous of you. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 9 2007, 06:25 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
It might help you to clear both your points up if you consider Pilot and System to be two seperate types of OSs. The OS, in this case, being the software behind the System (or Pilot) attribute. The Pilot OS is not the System OS + something else, but rather is highly limited form of OS designed to be handled for special hardware, namely a drone. It doesn't have all of the abilities of the full-suite "desktop" System-OS, but does have all of the utilities necessary to run a vehicle, including features normally installed with agents. Like how there's special Media-friendly Operating Systems now designed with that use in mind. It may not have all of the versatility (or compatibility) as other OSes have, but it has all the software built-in to do one thing and do it well. I wonder what would happen if I put this Pilot OS onto my commlink.... ::grin:: |
|
|
|
|
Jan 9 2007, 06:49 AM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
That may be Rob's houserule, but not the RAW. Per RAW, Pilot can run on devices if those are desired to make decisions, and has no mechanical shortcomings to System. System, on the other hand, when installed on a vehicle, may not allow the vehicle to steer itself, but otherwise does not has any drawbacks concerning (remote) control, etc. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 9 2007, 05:27 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
Hold on, I think there's merit in the Pilot =/= OS+Agent thinking. If that was so, is a drone with pilot was only an OS with an agent running then wouldn't the response be lowered and wouldn't they mention that somewhere. You'd think that would be an important point.
Both of you are missing something. Serb, if you can't figure out why pilot exists, it's most likely because you're missing something. RVD, saying that an agent is a node is a major stretch. I think both of you should go back and read the book with an open mind. Take that from one rules lawyer to another. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 03:44 AM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
1) I don't believe Serbitar is missing anything. Pilot is a separate type of System (that follows slightly different rules) that replaces System in the case of Drones. Why have a special case just for drones? Tradition? Why not have special cases for other stuff? (Hacking cyberwear, for example, cries out for more 'special rules' than drones do.) I don't think he's denying that Pilot is different from System, just that it's different without necessity. It might have been cleaner and smoother to have a special type of Agent (with piloting capability) that could have been put on any system, from cars to automatic doors and sprinkler systems. We already have IC as a type of agent, making Pilot into a type of agent would have opened the doors for all kinds of specialized Systems. 2) I believe the idea is that Pilot is an OS with an Agent built in, not an extra program that takes additional system resources. Otherwise you run into this weird situation where the system is taking away the system's resources. Which I don't really have a problem with, but doesn't seem to be the intent of the rules. 3) Agents are not nodes. Nodes are not agents. Nodes are kind of the virtual locations where virtual agents reside and carry out their functions. That being said, the dividing line where one node ends and another begins is non-existent in the rulebook. We all know that commlinks are their own nodes and that this node extends to other devices besides the user's commlink in an interconnected network. At first I ruled that Pilots were their own nodes and required their own firewalls and such, but after playing I decided to treat it as part of the same node as the primary owner's commlink. So the commlink firewall, response, and system applies to all of a user's commlinks, cyberwear, weapons, drones, and other devices. If a drone or other device is encountered outside the signal range of the owner's commlink, it creates its own node automatically (because it can't function without one) using its own hacking stats or device rating and any applicable programs installed (which can be assumed to be copied over by the owner before leaving range or becoming disconnected, if desired). (Agents must reside on one node and cannot be copied. I don't know why - it just seemed in the spirit of the rules.) 4) Reading the rulebook with an open mind is generally good advice, but I fear it won't help much. In this case, I think the rulebook is requiring the GM to make certain judgment calls (read "assumptions") such as when one node ends and another begins, and all parties involved here are working off their basic assumptions. The rulebook fairly clearly outlined WHAT can be done and what can't; I think this debate is on the WHY. 5) Yes, my previous post wasn't talking about house rules. It's on the RAW that System represents your OS and Pilot replaces System, therefore Pilot is a type of OS. Within the game rules, the OS (read "System" or "Pilot") is considered software, but isn't considered a program and Agents are clearly programs installed into a node (which is established by the System or Pilot [read "Operating System"]). In fact, for the purposes of this argument, I'd almost agree with Node = OS, except I think the OS is what makes the Node and Pilot or System is the OS. (Therefore you can't have more than one System [and/or Pilot] rating on a Node, and you need a System [and/or] Pilot on the node. 6) Completely off-topic, almost: For those of you (no names) who are thinking about making your own Wireless World chapter replacements, I'm thinking of reverting back to Mp might be better than using Response. Response doesn't seem to be helping anyone that I can see. I think tracking the Mp cost to run a particular program would be easier for the GM to calculate current Mp available, make more sense for everyone, and really appeal to players who like tweaking numbers like these. It's ridiculous to say that we don't have to track memory because of tech advances in 2070, but then have an abstract Response attribute that dwindles to nothing as more and more requests are made on the System/Pilot (OS). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 03:45 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Who's Rob? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 10:03 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Some guy that writes SR4 rules and fluff. Ah, and the line developer of Shadowrun.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 10:09 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
My precise issue is, that I would not add the desicion making part of SR4 Pilot and the OS part of SR4 Pilot together. It is much easier to have a reductionistic approach and let agents be simple programms, and everytime you wnt intelligence, you just let this program run, leaving all the other rules as they are. But I already said that a couple of times. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 10:10 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Exactly. But as I mentioned above, the ideal case would be to not intermix the AI part of Pilot/Agent with the System part at all! It is not necessary. Just take your normal node, put a normal agent on it (that uses the nodes System and Firewall ratings just like every other persona does) and let it take the place of the rigger/hacker. The agent rating only replaces the riggers/hackers attributes. Everything else stays the same. Thats as easy as it can get. No extra rules needed. No replacing of System by the agent, no replacing of Firewall, no replacement of anything except the riggers/hackers attributes and skills. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 11:46 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
..you know, the times when you had to worry about memory allocation ended with the DOS era. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 02:17 PM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Perhaps a topic for another thread, but I'll address it briefly. It's often a staple of most cyberpunk literature that I've seen (not that I've seen that much) that included VR Matrix-like interactions, that users always seem to have to make these choices, shutting off one program to replace it with another. In VR, these requirements make sense, as you shut down your 'Book' or 'Phone' program to replace it with your 'Sword' program. So we can presume that software eventually 'catches up' with hardware. And they always seem to turn off programs that they're not using right now (as opposed to having books and swords floating in the air next to them, available for reach at any time). I'm picturing an idea where available programs for use are limited by the amount of memory taken up on a commlink. Perhaps memory is equal to Response * 100. Programs, on average, would take up Rating * 20 with Agents probably taking up quite a bit more. If you need more memory, you can "allocate it", reducing System by 1 to gain 100 more memory (or perhaps Response * 50). Just messing with the idea though; still thinking about it. I'm also considering making Firewall just another utility program. Thus, an "active alert" is simply an allocation of memory to load a higher rating firewall program. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th March 2025 - 06:32 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.