 Hacker Theory, Why this is possible. |
  |
 Jan 29 2007, 09:50 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445  |
Is that a joke on 'if you cant do something, shoot it'? :|
|
 |
 
|
|
Jan 29 2007, 09:56 PM
Post
#118
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Munchkins Guide To Powergaming
Need to pick a lock? Shoot it with your gun! Need to talk your way past a guard? Wave your gun at them! etc etc |
|
|
|
|
Jan 29 2007, 10:05 PM
Post
#119
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
In that case the key is to explicitly say "ignore the rules in the BBB and only use the rules in this book" and then completely rewrite the entire rules section in unwired. What used to kill me with FASA is that they would seemingly rewrite a critical paragraph or two and embed it in another book, so you had to figure out what part of the base rules to use and what part got changed every time you need to look something up. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2007, 10:12 PM
Post
#120
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
So Rotbarts answer was just a meaningless joke without any actual content? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2007, 10:16 PM
Post
#121
|
|||||
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
That's not what I thought, but then again, my opinion is my own. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 29 2007, 10:19 PM
Post
#122
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Here, maybe I can help translate: Rotbart:You're wrong. Serbitar: No I'm not. Rotbart: Yes you are. All clear? I really think Serbitar's got an excellent point in equating the artificial intelligence of a drone to the "artificial intelligence" that can be granted through cyberwear (skillwire). If you can program a chip that can plug "Hacking" skill into a person, why is a stretch to assume a similiar program can plug "Hacking" skill into an agent? (This, of course, assumes you have independant agents as NPCs to begin with, which so far hasn't yet been awcknoledged by everyone. I, for one, felt the concept of agents as independant NPCs took more out of the game than they added and got rid of them.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2007, 10:30 PM
Post
#123
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,706 Joined: 30-June 06 From: Fort Wayne, IN Member No.: 8,814 |
I don't see how you have said anything different than in my post. Using an account with approriate priviledges, use Computer, else use Hacking...we are saying the same thing, just trying to figure out why you think I am confusing anyone. By practice, hackers in my game are using Hacking to get to an admin account, but once with the admin account, the are rolling with Computer because those actions are legal with that account. I disagree that everything you do is interacting with a device AND utilizing a program. If I am in my office lounge, operating a coffee machine by hand, I would use Logic + Skill. If I was at my desk operating the same coffee machine via AR/VR, I am using Program + Skill. I think you are avoiding the fact that there is "logic" behind that difference of interacting. Same thing with a door lock or a security camera. If you are accessing them via the "security room" controls, physically, you would be using your Logic + Skill. Otherwise, you are in AR/VR accessing them remotely and therefore use Program + Skill. @Serbitar I still don't see how you can marginalize the differences between a commlink, a coffee machine and a credstick. Just because they all could be 6/6/6/6, doesn't mean they have the same functions. I do agree they are all nodes, but that doesn't mean you can do EVERYTHING from any node... I agree with the previous posters on the interface difference. In my mind, a credstick can't do anything other than two-way communication between a POS device and a financial institution...its a gateway of sorts. I wouldn't let players store extra data on one, load it up with IC or agents or even run programs from it... I just feel that there are difference in similarly rated nodes...if there weren't than why isn't everything a commlink? No need to any electronic devices other than commlinks... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 29 2007, 10:47 PM
Post
#124
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Such equation would only hold true if using an Agent would require the user the same amount and type of actions to achieve a desired result and, additionally, if the attributes used were the same. Which isn't the case. It's not even the case that skillwires provide any sort of AI - they provide memorys. When using an Agent, the only action by the user is the Command action specifying the goal, and the Agent performs the required actions while making decisions. When using skillwires, the user itself is performing those actions, making any decisions directly. Basically, you can't even call it 'comparison'. It's a bad joke to begin with, and is only comparable to the munchkins mantra 'If you can't do something, stick a gun in somebody's face and threaten him into doing it for you.' |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2007, 11:05 PM
Post
#125
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
The problem with this assessment is that the rules example is made for using AR/VR as well. So:
As written, both answers are correct. On page 223, it gives credence to both interpretations. And of course, those interpretations are not the same, and the differences are extremely stark. Indeed, they can't even simply coexist with a "use whichever is better" approach, since the Hacker's Logic is going to be much higher than his Exploit program and doesn't require possession of illegal software that costs thousands of :nuyen:. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 29 2007, 11:49 PM
Post
#126
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Now I am getting angry. The following is very easy to understand: Hacker: skill + program + edge Agent instructed by Joe Normal: Agent rating + program -> agent rating is replacing skill What do skillwires do? They replace skill and forbid specialization and use of edge. Rules-wise 100% comparable. WHAT is your problem Rotbart? Do you just want to troll arround? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 29 2007, 11:56 PM
Post
#127
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Why cant you load agents on the credstick and run software? Its a node. Running software and Agents is what nodes are for. What should prevent it from connecting to node X? You can even store data on your gun! (Isnt that mentioned in the BBB explcitly? Forgot the page) Read my "proof quotes" one page 3 or 4 of this thread to find the exact SR4 BBB quotes. Thats really how SR4 matrix world was designed. And it is good that way, except for the System < Response rule. You may say that you dissallow this or that, but thats your own houserules. I solve the whole problem by giving a credstick System 6, Signal 3, Response 1 and Firewall 6. Thats exactly what it should be, a high security but very low performance node. Of course that is a house rule (mostly because Response is lower than System) And not everything is a commlink, because a comlink has an interface, a camera, a gps a microphone and lots of other stuff. But everything is a node. And apart from the System/Response problem that is a very good and streamlined solution. In one thing you are right: They dont have the same functions. But thats only hardware functions. A commlink cant make coffe and a coffe machine cant make pictures, but both can connect to the matrix, and run programs and software and can be hacked. And both can run a persona (it doesnt even cost precessing power in SR4) when connected to a brain. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 12:22 AM
Post
#128
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
There is the mistake - an Agent does not replace a skill, it replaces the operator, including the skill. This has certain consequences within the rules you choose to ignore to make your simplified 'comparision' work. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 01:10 AM
Post
#129
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
It doesnt matter. The SC is directing the agent roll by roll. The fluff description may be different but the result is the same.
I see no "consequnces". If you know some, name them (and I really wonder why you did not do this in your last posting. Do you want to be misunderstood, or what is your intention?) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2007, 02:44 AM
Post
#130
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Serbitar, Rotbart already gave a perfectly reasonable argument that you haven't responded to. I think you might have overlooked it because it wasn't structured like yours were. Plus, I think it was actually in response to my message. He postulated that skillwires replace 'memory' not skill. Thus a hacker might have memories of an expert hacker hacking a similar system, and based on that make conscious decisions about how to hack that system. He further theorizes that an agent cannot make decisions based on that prior history in the same manner that a human operator can. Personally, I don't agree with his interpretations, but I think they're worth at least a response and, if refuted, do tear a hole in your skillwire = agent skill argument (which I still think is a perfectly valid and striking point). But don't accuse him unjustly of trying to muddle the argument - he did put forth an opinion and arguments to back it up. (To Rotbart: If I am misunderstanding your previous statements, please feel free to clarify the issue. I just don't like to see misunderstandings in what is otherwise a very good debate.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 02:55 AM
Post
#131
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Assuming I'm right about your objections, Rotbart, I'm going to put forth a cause-effect stream. Feel free to identify which parts you disagree with and why: 1) Agents have Artificial Intelligence. 2) Agents operate independently of a hacker, once given instructions. 3) Artificially Intelligent Agents can make decisions in roughly a similar manner to that which "actually" Intelligent people are capable of. 4) Artificially Intelligent agents can be more intelligent than people. 5) For purposes of hacking, equating intellectual decision-making capabilities to the Logic attribute is not a far stretch. 6) An agent with high Logic attributes has the same decision making powers of a high Logic hacker. 7) Skillwires grant the 'memory' of the use of a skill. 8) Deductive reasoning powers to decide on probably outcomes and decisions based on past data is a function of Logic, and therefore applicable to agents with this 'memory'. 9) The agent can use its Logic attribute for Logic based tests. 10) The agent has a hacking skill. 11) Decision making powers (Logic), knowledge/experience (skillsoft 'memory'), and independent operation (which all agents have, more or less) are all that is required to learn a Logic-based skill. 12) Agents can learn a hacking skill as easily as a skillwire. --- Personally, I don't see the need to define any of this. I think the fact that we can record skills as programs is pretty obvious - whether you call these skills program ratings, device ratings, autosofts, or skillwires is pretty much irrelevant to me. For the most part that's just nitpicking over the interface. It's like arguing that you have a different document, just because one is handwritten and one is faxed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 03:08 AM
Post
#132
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445 |
Agents are just full of If=X - Then=Y.
"If = under attack, Then = Perform 'attack back'; Perform 'print to system'" "If = Attack Back, Then = Perform 'Target'; Perform 'Attack Target'" Ect... The ammount of If/Then the agent has is dependant on what rank it is, with a Rank 6 having the most situations available to it. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2007, 03:38 AM
Post
#133
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Whoa, so that's what an argument from Looking-Glass Land looks like. Are you saying that Rotbart is claiming that an Agent is not like a Skillwire system because a Skillwire has a flavor-text description about how it prevents you from learning anything while you're using it and an Agent that you're directing has no such limitation? That's not a argument at all. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 04:07 AM
Post
#134
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
I don't think that was said by anybody, now. Serbiter said (and, of course, I'm paraphrasing, and not accurately: ) "this is basically how a Skillwire works and it supports my argument that I was making before." Rotbart said (paraphrasing again, as best I can: ) "that's not what a skillwire is," proceed to give a very brief and somewhat vague opinion on what a skillwire is and state it as fact, and then reason that if the skillwires worked that way (which he assumed to be true) then the way a skillwire works does not support Serbiter's argument. The word 'memory' was used, but at no time did anyone discuss learning anything, or speculate about whether or not an agent can learn. (Although, now that you mention it, such speculation does throw a hole in my Logic=intelligence formula in a previous post.) He did, however, I believe, numerously mention that agents suffer from inherent limitations that hackers do not. These dintinguishing limitations, apparently, for reasons relating to viewing the skillwires as recorded memories, do not allow an agent to use skillwires. (I feel weird arguing somebody else's case. :)) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 04:40 AM
Post
#135
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 101 Joined: 30-December 06 Member No.: 10,493 |
One cure to the "Agent Smith" problem is the "independant agent" solution: Once you get software entities intelligent enough to act a a person (e.g. a hacker), those entities stop following orders. Modern "expert systems" can do amazing things, but they lack the reasoning capabilities to act as a person. Webcrawlers are great for search engines and databases, but that's about it. Spambots can spam, but nothing else. Viruses basically just act as viruses. It is possibile that anything capable of acting as a human in many capacities at once, unlike the aformentioned bots, will need a strong AI. When your comlink spawns 6 million AI agent processes, those processes go off and do whatever the fuck they want. Too bad for you. So, how do SR agents get used? It's as Frank says: Dumb AI processes being coordinated by your comlink, and acting in their limited capacities. If you spawn 6 million of them, they do nothing because you can't coordinate them and they can't coordinate themselves effectively (because you can't tell them what to do fast enough). Obviously not RAW, just a thought. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2007, 05:09 AM
Post
#136
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
I'm the new guy around here, but I'll weigh in.
Now, I'm not the computer geek some of you guys are, and I haven't (sadly) had much time to shake the book and see what falls out like you guys do, but I'll address at least two arguments that have come up repeatedly here as I see them... you know, from the outside and without falling into one of the two camps. Technomancers are 'broken' because they cost too much to play. Bullshit. Sorry, bull... fucking... shit. I'm not gonna pull your leg and say they are better, worse or what not, but they are hardly broken. Sure, he's not going to be running around with straight sixes in his hacking stats, thus no 6/6/6/6 commlink equivlent, then again a bunch of hackers are probably gonna think to themselves that they can wait for that six in logic... that last dice in teh pool just ain't worth it to start, ya know? Maybe, maybe not. On the other hand, I don't see a 6/6/6/6 commlink in the book either, meaning your brand new old school hacker is gonna have to wait until the game starts to get one too. What you ARE going to see is a more dedicated TM over a more jack of all trades hacker. And unlike the hacker, the TM can come up with CF's he needs on the fly. At a guess, you'll also see that when the Karma starts rolling in the TM starts to outstrip the hacker, since resonance isn't capped. Credsticks and coffee machines as uber commlinks: Here I think it's a case of reading WAAAAAYYYYYY too much into the fluff. I'm sorta new at this debate, but: If, as a GM, I had a player tell me his credstick was a 6/6/6/6 commlink, instead of just an incredibly well protected dedicated purpose device, I'd laugh at him. Flat out. I wouldn't even bother with the ratings for the other stuff, the Device rating represnts how hard it is to hack, nothing more, nothing less. Comes from not trying to read into things. Here's how I see it. Sure, you credstick MIGHT have 6/6/6/6, but it's designed to do one thing and one thing only. It's not designed to work as an interface (as compared to a node...) in the wireless world. Every rating it has reflects its singular purpose (protecting your money/ID and transmitting it when authorized). So, if you want to turn your credstick into a commlink, in addition to potentially wrecking your bank account balance due to failsafes behind the encryption, you'll spend an extended check and the money tryign to go back and install all the things that make a commlink a fucking commlink and not a credstick. You know, Sim rig (last I checked your credstick lacked that...), additional memory for your actual copies of software, an OS designed to support hacking, etc. Same thing with the coffee machine. Sure, your commlink may steal memory and processing power from the coffee maker to run shit... but the Commlink is the one actually doing the running, not the damn bean brewer. As to wether or not the rules are actually broken or not, well... I've got to do some research on the 'Agent Smith Problem' and other things first. I still suspect you guys are trying too hard. I've got more issues with the damn layout of the book than munchkins running rampant. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2007, 05:16 AM
Post
#137
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
I don't know, according to Frank, it's all pretty ubiquitous... (Just kidding guys.)
Oohhh... we're having a bad influence. :P Welcome to dumpshock! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 30 2007, 05:23 AM
Post
#138
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
Thanks, It only took me about a week to get approval.... :eek:
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 30 2007, 05:24 AM
Post
#139
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
It's to keep out the rats. :) Yeah, I hated that process, too. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 07:04 AM
Post
#140
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Actually, they can do damn near anything you want as long as it isn't subtle. You can tell them to do a denial of service attack or attempt to hack into a corp. For example, attach to this lists of nodes and try to hack in using this set of programs. Naturally you have each of them trying it a bit differently, but it's all done in a pre-programmed fashion. If you really control 6 million devices I would tend to suspect that you are going to at the very least make it damn near impossible for anyone trying to keep hackers out from noticing anything that is less subtle. And there are few things less subtle than 6 million agents trying to brute-force their way in. In most cases I'd expect you will get significant success in breaking in, at which point the agent promptly goes and edits the node code, hacks the logs, and sends a message back telling the controller that it broke in and how to exploit this. As the security guy at our place points out, one person walking around trying the doors of cars in a building parking lot has a limited likelihood of success, and hence a limited cost/benefit ratio. If you can automatically try every car door in the entire city every second your chance of success is just a wee bit higher. With a botnet, or a horde of agents, you can. That's why botnets really suck. And agents are essentially just bots. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 30 2007, 08:32 AM
Post
#141
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
cetiah:
once gain, my reasoning goes like this: Agents that are told exactly what to do (roll this, then roll that) have exactly the same effective game mechanics like skillwires, as they replace your skill, and prevent you from using edge, but still you have complete freedom of choice what to do. BUT you can have them to rating 6, although you can have only skillwires to 4. THAT is my point. Nothing else. That agents are not skillwires at all and have completely different fluff descriptions does not change that they have exactly the same game mechanics when looked at dice numbers. Memory and stuff is fluff. Dice numbers dont care about fluff. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th January 2026 - 07:59 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.