 Protecting drones from hackers |
  |
 Jan 10 2007, 03:40 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514  |
I think you're missing the point of this system. Yes, there are some assumptions you have to make. But you can apply logic and come out with a pretty simple system. I don't really see what's so wrong with Pilot being a different type of System (one that apparently runs Autosofts instead of programs because of a highly specialized nature). System trades the decision making capability of Pilot for the ability to run many different functions, including Agents which act as mini Pilots based off computer users rather than a specific drone.
I may be way off base here but that's how I run it in game and it has worked wonders. My players who were too intimidated to play a decker in SR1-3 are all taking a few hacking skills and learning that system. And liking it a lot. It doesn't bog down with rules and numbers and stats. It's quick to run during game. To be honest, as the matrix system exists in the book, it's a wonderful improvement over the old matrix rules. I read Serbitar's guides when a player showed them to me. I really dug the paranoia part and made it required reading for all my players. But the matrix guide turned me off. I saw too many points that would make the average player turn away and play another street sam. My younger brother, who plays a covert-centric hacker/assassin, got so frustrated me sat out of a session. A players choice I know, but I thought it was a shame based on how simple the rules seemed to me. In this case it seems like basing things on reality (I should point out, our 68 year old reality) is damaging to the spirit of the system. I don't want to discount the work done by the community, specifically certain members, but I have to wonder why so much clearification was needed when the majority of my players get the system and understand it as it is. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 03:46 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
because a lot of other people don't get it, and more to the point those who do "get it" don't get it the same way. essentially, Serbitar is not so much saying "here's what the rules are" so much as he is saying "here's an interpretation of the rules". essentially, if you and all of your players all think the matrix works exactly the same (or mostly the same, at any rate) then you can feel free to ignore other people's advice... in fact, i would avoid it. you have a rather rare situation going, and you don't want to contaminate it :P but essentially, large parts of the system are not really specified. some things are hinted at, some things are mentioned but never really fully explained how they work... basically most of the matrix rules are extremely open to interpretation. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 04:58 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
So you cant run Agents on a Drone? Well, have fun, then. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 11:19 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
so basically your saying, buy a agent, system and firewall. put agent inside the node generated by the system. replace the agent stats with the system and firewall stat? isnt that more or less what pilot is all about? its like we are arguing semantics or something... btw, a drone pilot is the only matrix entity (if one can call it that) able to use autosoft iirc. hell, i wonder why your not having a hissy fit over there being a separate name for agents tasked with defending a node. you know, those classical intrusion countermeasures (IC)... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 10 2007, 11:44 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
What's wrong with not being able to run an agent on a drone pilot? Why should you be able to? They way I approach it isn't a "Start with a System and make it a Pilot" method but by taking it from the description that they are two separate things that have some similar functions because they tend to share networks. This eliminates the "Pilot=System+Agent" thinking completely and explains away your confusion as to why they didn't go that route, Serb.
Are there any official rules or FAQs that contradict this? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2007, 11:57 PM
Post
#56
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
No, per RAW, the agent uses his pilot rating as System and Firewall, not the one of the node. Actually it IS the system to some interpretations. Depending on whom you ask, drone nodes must have such a pilot system as their "main" System (whatever it means to have more than one system ratings). With this combination you have quit some problems to find out how things interact. If you just say: OK the agent replaces the rigger/hacker in every aspect with its rating and takes up a program slot, and the rest stays the same, thats much easier. Instead there is pilot that has a system rating, and gets a firewall rating when it turns into an agent. But it can only have autosoft when its only a pilot and nobody has the slightest idea whether the pilot is actually the system of the node or a sub node in the node with a sperate system rating and so on . . . So its definitely not semantics. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 11 2007, 12:00 AM
Post
#57
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Well, then vehicle nodes can not run agents/IC. Thats bad. And I see no reason why they shouldnt be able to. Just because of this strange an completely unstreamlined approach.
Not in any way I am aware of. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 11 2007, 12:06 AM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
That happens for two reasons: First, it was usual when those stories were written. And, more important... it was a cheap plot device. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 12:08 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
True. I could live without "program load" rules. But they are not that bad, make some things interesting (and should only be used in those situations).
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 12:12 AM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
The only one here who is obsessed by "Pilot=System+Agent" is Serbitar. The RAW clearly isn't, as it goes the other way round. So it's like with most imaginary problems - they only exist if you want them to. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 12:18 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
Here's a question. Per the rules as you understand them, can you plug your datajack into a drone and use it as a commlink? I'd say no personally, it's not made for that sort of thing. The Pilot of the node, though it acts as System in many respects, is not System. Whether the rules support that or not I'm not entirely sure, but that's what I walked away with. As for running IC on the Pilot of a drone (as it does not have System after all) you would be out of luck. You could have an Agent on a connected system monitor that drone and occasionally log onto it remotely (much like a hacker does) but the agent itself couldn't run on it. The agent could run Analyze in it's own persona (taking responce on it's home commlink) to check and see what is accessing the drone, and even run cybercombat the same way. You could not however have an inactive Agent loaded into the emory of the drone ready to start up as IC when intrusion is detected.
Do the rules support this as I've stated or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 12:21 AM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
I don't think it matters how you define it, really. Serb's problem isn't that Pilot is "system+agent". That's just one of the models of showing that the problem's a problem. I think Serb's objection is that the Pilot attribute exists. Period. And it doesn't have to. There are better tools for this sort of thing. You could define Pilot a different way, and knock everything that Serb has been saying for this unrelated definition, but that still doesn't "explain away Serb's confusion". |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 12:26 AM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
To answer your question, as per the rules as I understand them, yes, you can plug your datajack into a drone and use it as a commlink. Referring to it by these 2070 terms kind of dissassociates the matter for me, though. Try this: Could you plug your datajack into your car and use it like a computer? Why or why not? Could you play games through your car? Watch trid? I like the idea that you can plug into your car, though there's no need if everyone has a commlink. But you can. You can surf the matrix. You can download mapsofts into your car. You can request a trid broadcast. Pirate audio streams can blare in surround sound. Transparent trid video can play as a background on your windshield. Whatever electronic/digital networking gimmick you can think of should be taken to the Nth degree. That's the Wireless World for you. You could even plug into the matrix, do some shopping, buy a Maneuver autosoft, and download it right into your car. If you don't feel like jacking into to do it, you can just do it simply do it by voice command, too. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 03:03 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, cetiah's postings made me think that some of the issue is the overlap between the drone pilot stat and the agent pilot rating.
never seen the issue with that, but ill spend a bit more time reading the book... something tells me that this is mostly a editing problem as they ran out of space. maybe pop a faq request or wait for unwired or arsenal to go into more detail. as it stands now we could be tossing stuff back and forth like monkeys in different trees and never get to a conclusion... |
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 06:24 AM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
Seems to me like the software that constitutes a Pilot rating on a node and the software that constitutes a System rating on a node are similar (they interchange rating based on situation), can be run on the same types of hardware (same networks, same Firewall and Response), but are limited in what they work with (Programs and Agents vs. Autosofts).
The key is that a drone Pilot doesn't take resources, the response isn't lowered automatically. Therefore we aren't dealing with a System running a dedicated Agent to provide the Pilot rating, but instead a specialized type of OS that is essentially a Pilot only. There is nothing in the book that says a Program will run on a drone Pilot, save Autosofts which can only be run by Pilots. So why should you be able to? Any precieved balance or flavor reasons aside I don't see anything that says you should be able to run anything other than Autosofts on a node with a Pilot rating. Please quote the rule if I'm wrong. An Agent has a Pilot rating, and it can USE programs, but it and any programs it is using are on a commlink according to the section. This all makes sense to me from a balance stand point as well. A hacker can feed his drones the best commands he can think of, come up with complex behavior patterns and contingencies, but can't load an Agent on it to act as a "Monkey with a Hammer" as the recent commercial shows so graphically. He has to moniter it from the outside and when it gets away from him he has to deal with the reality that it may be taken over and used against him without his knowing. Everything has a commlink type device in it nowadays (your gun, coat, cyberarm, etc.), except those devices that are made to think for themselves to perform that function (like a drone). I don't see from a rules stand point where Pilot vs. System doesn't make sense. It's streamlined as can be, two types of attributes make sense and two are provided. It might be late but I can't think of why you would need another type, and can only see a terribly broken system if one was removed. The designers wanted to draw a line between drones and commlinks and have done so by creating Pilot and System. What's not streamlined? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 06:39 AM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
you sure about that? i'm pretty sure it works for anything with a pilot rating. which means pilots, IC, and agents could all use it, theoretically. though it is certainly a great deal less efficient to use agents or IC. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 07:01 AM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
I think you're right about that. It doesn't say "Drone Pilot" it says "Pilot", so I suppose an Agent could load an Autosoft just like it could a program. What it would do with it would be up to how far you read into the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 07:20 AM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
autosoft + command program = remotely controlled goodness. well... mediocrity anyways. in a less-effective-than-a-drone-pilot sort of way, that is. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 09:07 AM
Post
#69
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
To state it more clearly: My problem is, that there is not a pure AI rating thing (however you call it) but a thing that includes System along with the Ai stuff (Pilot) and even System and Firewall (Agent) AND that this System + AI thing (called Pilot) is even used as an OS (for whatever reason). I say again: Just replacing the rigger/hacker attributes/skills with the agents stats and let everything else be the same is the natural solution. No "this node is run by a pilot OS and has now special rules" nonsene. Thats what I called anti streamlined some posts ago. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 11 2007, 09:11 AM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Yes, its a node. You can use every node as a comlink. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 11 2007, 04:16 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
But where does it say that every node is a commlink and a drone is a node? That's what's important. You are assuming that a drone can be used as a commlink, that a Pilot has all the functions of System, and I haven't found anything in the rules to back that up. Agents seem like the exception rather than the rule because they are in a System already.
If all that is true, if a drone Pilot has all the functions of a System, then why doesn't your character write a Pilot for his commlink to replace the System rating? Basically throw out the OSes listed in the Matrix section and write a drone pilot based off an Agent program. That way he would have a commlink with a dedicated Agent that never lowers responce. How broken is that? Sure it's an assumption, but so is saying that a drone pilot has all the standard System functions. You see, if it's true that a Pilot can't do the things a System can do then they are two separate things and there is no streamlining problem. No more than saying magic is lame because they didn't just make one kind of magic user that does everything. Diversity, man. It's good for you, makes things interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 04:35 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Please read the discussion above where Rotbart successfully argues that Pilots have/are System. He quotes RAW.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 04:37 PM
Post
#73
|
|||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Then re-read the first section about Pilot.
Because it isn't cheap and allows orders being spoofed to that comlink. Still, there are times you want to do this, indeed.
The whole point about Agents is not having one run on you hardware, but rather having many running out there in the wild, doing your bidding. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 11 2007, 06:58 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
how does the saying go? mountains out of anthills?
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2007, 07:00 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
There is one line at the end of the first paragraph about how Pilot functions like System, but the context lends more to tests that require System than implying a full suite of commlink type functions. Common sense also applies. If everything has a wireless device, and every wireless device has a device rating, and the device rating acts as System, and everything that has System has commlink functions, why sell commlinks? You already have one if you're standing there wearing nothing but your skivvies.
It was pretty clear to me that when they talked about Personas and Programs they were talking about your Commlink. They then went on to mention these other devices like drones. Why make up fluff for commlink operating systems and commlinks if there is an unnamed, unspecified device that does the same thing already in your beer glass? You can say it's a mistake on thier part, but I'd be more included to say you might be wrong in your assumtion that commlink functions extend to everything with a System rating. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th March 2025 - 05:48 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.