 Stupid Question, Again on agents |
  |
 Feb 8 2007, 12:01 AM
Post
#126
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf  Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670  |
there's no need to modify the RAW. that's how agents work. agents simply have an option that hackers do not: they can change what node their persona is operating on, by uploading themselves (and presumably deleting themselves from the previous node, though that's not required). the point of the "must be uploaded" rule is so that it's clear where an agent's code is running. this is a change from SR3, where it was completely unclear where exactly an agent's code was being stored/run at any point in time. it doesn't necessitate having the code running on the same node it's acting on, it simply necessitates having the code running on a node somewhere. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Feb 8 2007, 12:10 AM
Post
#127
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Agents don't have a persona. That's nowhere in the rules. Independant agents are icons. IC are icons. IC must be loaded into a node that it is protecting. Whereas a hacker who breaks in could use all the agents loaded in his persona that travel with him. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 12:19 AM
Post
#128
|
|||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 20-December 05 Member No.: 8,083 |
Your persona is a representation of your comm/workstation/etc, however it is your Persona's [b]icon[b] that can exist on multiple remote systems simultaneously. The matrix section of the RAW often makes a distinction between the Persona and the Persona's icon.
Your Persona is running on your local commlink managing its icons and passing along commands. However the persona's icon is really on their node and executing programs. This gives the Persona control over the connection and the node doesn't have to really care about the details of the connection. If it was the server/client connection you want, then the node would control the connection. The advantage of this is that since the Persona controls the connect, the persona is limited to the number of connections it can have (System*2) and the node doesn't because it isn't sending data anywhere but a local icon (in this case). While a server/client scenario may be more likely, plausible, rational or even probably, it isn't supported by the RAW. The RAW continuously talks of the persona being our connection to the Matrix, and your persona's icons being on a node and hoping to other nodes. There is an entire section on logging into nodes and everything you can do and manipulate and account access levels. There are no sections which detail how to access servers on a node. None on how to exploit a server to bypass the firewall so you don't have to use a logon action. Nothing on anything which suggests a client/server scenario. Also consider the following: Why does it take Black IC jams open a connection? In the Persona/Persona Icon world, the Black IC is jamming open the hot simsense connection between the icon and persona. It has to be done through an attack sequence because the persona controls that connection, not the node. If the node were acting as a server then it would control that connection and what gets sent over it, so why couldn't any IC just immediately send Black IC level simsense down the pipe? Why doesn't IC just immediately drop the connection altogether, since the server controls the connection? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 12:19 AM
Post
#129
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
So what? They are still running on a "particular node" - which means that the difference between them having a Persona and not is purely semantic. They still have their particular node, and they spawn icons in the nodes that they are accessing, and their stats are capped out by the node they are running on, and if you crash their icon they collapse and are booted from the Matrix. I don't understand why you have this big hangup over whether Agents technically have Personas or just have a particular node - it doesn't actually have any effect whatsoever on what happens when an Agent is accessing 6 different nodes. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 8 2007, 12:43 AM
Post
#130
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Why do you let people install spambots on your PC? Oh, that's right, you didn't let them, but they did it anyway. That's what attack agents are. They are compromised systems that the attacker controls to some extent. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 8 2007, 01:03 AM
Post
#131
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Please read again, especially the emphasis on the "need". For extra impact, replace "need" with "have to", because thats what some suggest here.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 8 2007, 01:54 AM
Post
#132
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 1-February 07 Member No.: 10,861 |
Because we believe--and we believe that the RAW supports us in this-- that an agent cannot make multiple connections, and access multiple nodes, but must instead move from node to node. Also, remember, the Matrix of 2070 barely resembles the internet of today. The Matrix of 2070 has been through two complete, ground up rebuilds. it is not a simple evolution from what we have now to then. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 02:06 AM
Post
#133
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
AAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Seriously, what the hell? Agents can access nodes in addition to moving from one to another. It's an explicit statement under "Using Agents". I mean holy crap. This thread is 6+ pages long. The Agent section is less than half of 227, and less than half of 228. You could at least read the whole thing. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 02:51 AM
Post
#134
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 1-February 07 Member No.: 10,861 |
I did. And that quote you provided should go "Agents can also access other nodes independently if instructed to and if they either have the passcodes or are carrying an exploit program and can hack their own way in (as independent Icons)" While I admit this passage is rather confusing (it uses "and" twice with no commas.) it seems clear that accessing other nodes includes hacking their way in as independent Icons. Of course, if I had just read your quote, and not read the context, I may have come to the conclusion you seem to have. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 03:07 AM
Post
#135
|
|||||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 24 Joined: 20-December 05 Member No.: 8,083 |
Allow me the opportunity to see if I can shed light on what you consider is Pyritefoolsgold's and my confusion. To do this I will walk you through my train of thought on reading this section of the manual. We can't correct any misconceptions unless you know what angle I'm coming from. =) An expanded section from the manual that contains the statement you quoted reads:
I'm going to go line by line of the above section. "Agents use the Response attribute of whatever node they are run on; this means that the attributes of an agent operating independently may vary as it moves from node to node." This statement explicitly states that agents have the ability to jump from node to node. It even states there are affects on the Agent for doing such a thing. This does not directly state that agents cannot access another node, but it doesn't mention the ability to either. "Agents can be loaded into your persona like other programs (taking a Complex Action), allowing the agent to accompany you to any nodes you access." Here we see that because the agent is loaded into the persona, it gets to tag along as the persona accesses another node. Lets take a second to look at the login process a bit. One of the persona's icons does a logon action to access the node. The persona then combats the node's firewall. If successful <or if the persona knows the passcode> then the Persona has access to the node and uploads its icon. It must upload its icon, since the icon gets on the node and so the persona icon moves from one node to another. The upload occurs as part of the successful logon. "Agents can also access other nodes independently if instructed to and if they either have the passcodes or are carrying an Exploit program and can hack their own way in (as independent icons)" Well, since we want to keep things simple, we assume that agents behave as much like Hacker as possible. Also remember that the agent is itself an icon. So the agent want to access another node. It does the logon to the node. The agent then combats the node's firewall. If successful, the next step would be for the agent to upload its icon. The agent's icon is itself, so the agent icon would be uploaded. So what happens here? Well with the hacker, the persona icon moved from one node to the next as part of the upload, so the logical leap <at least in my mind> is that the agent icon moves from one node to the next as part of its upload. This does not leave the Agent accessing two nodes, but has the agent hoping from one to another which we know is possible. My apologies to Pyritefoolsgold if this is not what he was thinking with his statement, but these are indeed my views on the matter. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 03:10 AM
Post
#136
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
Well stated, Kiyote.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 8 2007, 03:19 AM
Post
#137
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Sorry, man. It's the rules as written. You're inventing stuff so that agents act just like personas, when they don't. And it seems like you're doing it just so you can bash how RAW works when it doesn't work that way. You're the one who insisted we only stick to RAW and not discuss house rules or how we would like to change the Matrix so that it makes sense.
You are taking the quote out of context. "Access" means access that node which requires loggin in and entering that node, and in some cases hacking. "Independantly" means independent of your Persona. Agents are either loaded in Persona or are operating independantly (meaning they are loaded in a node as an independant icon).
Well, what do you expect? You've ignored our attempts to quote rules to you. The game text defines how agents work and the game text defines how personas work, and you insist on attributing qualities of the persona to the agent even though that's nowhere in the game text. You just keep repeating the same thing, not to quote RAW, but to specify your own conceptual interpretation about how RAW should read if it worked the way you seem to want it to. And then you accuse us of not reading the text when we quote passages and systems to you. We talk about how different functions work and how different elements of the game fit together and how this fits with the overall topology and gameplay and nothing works... no matter how much RAW we quote to you, you just present us with your overall "So what? You're stupid." non-argument. I suggest you go back and do a little reading, beyond just two or three paragraphs because people here have been quoting text that talks about personas, icons, logging in, cybercombat, etc. that all relates to reasons why you are wrong on this issue. Maybe if you read more than just those few sentences, the reasoning would be more clear to you. Actually, I'm not even sure you're reading those sentences because the only thing you seem to be reading at all are the three words "agent" "access" "independantly" and then you attribute your own definitions to those words, take it all out of context, and insist that the picture you are left with is RAW. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 03:51 AM
Post
#138
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
no, it's not the rules as written, it's the rules as you've interpreted them. you have decided that agents must be loaded onto a node in order to hack that node, and you're interpreting every ambivalence in the rules to support that. FrankTrollman, myself, and others, have decided that agents make sense, and are therefore interpreting the rules in such a way that the make sense. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 8 2007, 03:56 AM
Post
#139
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 246 Joined: 26-January 06 Member No.: 8,198 |
I know I know, its been a while since I posted here, but as someone who wrote a few things on Hackers back when SR4 came out on DS I'm adding my two cents.
If what Frank and others are saying makes sense, their belief in the way its written, and the people who disagree with Frank (Now the flag man for Agents Make Sense Anon. apparently) see it another way, which to even them their reasoning doesn't make sense...Why are we arguing? Really? Is it so hard to take the reasoning of the rules that make sense? I bet your players/gm would be happier with that then having to staple a printed sheet of your house rules to their books for an issue which may not ever come up. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:03 AM
Post
#140
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Because the only reason Frank and Serbitar are arguing for this position is that it creates their Agent Smith problem of another thread and they can turn around and declare how unreasonable and stupid RAW is because of what (they believe) it says. They want agents to be omni-powerful "hackers in a box" ready to unleash themselves on any node in the system, and that's not what RAW says or why those rules were written. Their interpretation also pre-supposes contradictions in the rule system where they don't exist. And according to Serbitar's original post, this thread was meant to convince certain people who disagree with him that RAW does actually work this way and everyone who believes differently is wrong. That's the challenge that's been presented in this thread. So it ultimately doesn't matter which side is "right" because no one's trying to fix the problem, if one exists. The purpose of the thread is to see who is right so that corrections, interpretations, and new ideas have a framework with which to launch in other threads. Right? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:07 AM
Post
#141
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 870 Joined: 2-October 06 From: Athens Ga Member No.: 9,517 |
The reason that people are arguing is because some people are trying to figure out what makes sense, some people are trying to defend what they see as their investment in the books and the books have to be right because the game developers say so, and some people don't seem to understand that the point of this kind of forum is discussion of rules so they sit around complaining that some people don't like the RAW. Some people also seem to think that all parts of the rules and setting are some kind of inseperable block that can't be altered without making them say "go play d20" because someone is messing with their toy.
Good grief. :( |
|
|
|
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:10 AM
Post
#142
|
|||||
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Ancient Fucking History on a Pogo-Crutch, people! You've filled two threads about f'nuckin' Agents faster than they filled one thread about statuatory rape over on the Wizards.com (im)mature forum. Why don't you just write the publisher and ask them for a clarification? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:12 AM
Post
#143
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Hey, I wanted to propose a set of assumptions for a good Matrix system, discuss them, and move on from there, but Frank insisted I take down my post because it wasn't appropriate for this thread and he was only interested in discussions about RAW. Although Serbitar started this thread and he should get the final vote on what is or isn't within the spirit of this thread, he's kept silent and he seemed to be more or less satisfied when I admitted that RAW needs to be changed and house rules could cover the issues much better than RAW. Since Serbiter's issues have been more-or-less covered, anyone should have the right to say "let's take the conversation this way now" and Frank did that. I consented, and no one has contested the issue. So per his request, this topic is all about RAW and deciding correct interpretations of RAW, regardless about how we feel about the issue or whether or not we feel these custom hacking rules do the job better or not. Since the person who started this thread has his own Matrix rules, and so do I, it seems you would be wrong, Garrowolf. We are not arguing about this because of our limitations to see past RAW. We're arguing about this because its become clear in other discussions that not all of us seem to be starting from the same viewpoint when discussing changes and ways to move past RAW. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:14 AM
Post
#144
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 916 Joined: 26-August 05 From: The land between the north , the south and the midwest. Member No.: 7,626 |
They don't NEED personas. It is the software that translates your commands into computer commands, aka a User Interface. Software doesn't need a user interface. It speaks computer natively.
IC are agents. All software and data have icons; icons are just symbols/images/animations that provide something to see in VR. Your icon online is provided by software, referred to as a Persona.
Agents have inherent iconography programmed into them to represent themselves on the net. Their attributes are based on their own codebase (which, since it can run other programs, is an OS unto itself) and includes their own firewall rating. The main difference between an Agent and a Hacker is that if you crash the Persona you crash the node but an agent can crash without impacting the node. That's a vital difference since IC are agents and you don't want a server to crash just because the IC died. Your persona can generate an icon on multiple hosts and yet your Persona still resides on your CPU, not that of the host system.
It's more appropriate to say a Persona imitates an Agent than Agents imitate Personas. A persona is required to provide the interface between human thought and the matrix. Agents are natively matrix entities. There is nothing to suggest that a persona can do anything an agent can't other than act as a user interface. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:29 AM
Post
#145
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 870 Joined: 2-October 06 From: Athens Ga Member No.: 9,517 |
I wasn't trying to blast you cetiah, I've been mostly agreeing with you. I was replying more to the post about why are we arguing. I'm also alittle frustrated aross several threads. I'm also sorry that you got edited by Frank for expressing your opinion in Serbitar's thread. Maybe he should have not called it Stupid Question and invited them. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:30 AM
Post
#146
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
An excellent theory. So what are you saying? Agents should be equal to personas? Worse than? Better than? None of these interetations are supported by RAW. RAW just says that they are different and has different rules to cover them.
I didn't say they HAD icons. The quote says they ARE icons. My very point is that they don't HAVE icons and can't project them. Also programs don't exist within the Matrix until they are loaded into a node, persona, or agent. So they might have an icon, but that icon is still loaded into something -- your Exploit system isn't going to jump a node by itself. But if you load it into a persona, the persona can carry it. This is how programs move from node to node within the Matrix. They have to be loaded into something. They can't just "project icons" like a persona can.
No, you're own definitions instead of RAW. Independant agents *are* icons and they can carry programs. Their attributes are based on their codebase and the node that they are loaded into - this also supports the passage that an agents attributes can change as it moves from node to node. Nice try.
Why do people keep saying this? It's not in RAW anywhere! You're node does not crash if the persona crashes! In fact, nodes can't even crash. They can be shut down, but they can't be crashed. Only programs and OSes can be crashed, and crashing the OS is one way to shutdown the node. Your node is not shutdown when your persona is crashed.
Yes, but this is a function unique to personas. Agents cannot do this. It specifically says that the agent must be loaded onto a node, it can't just be run off the comlink like a persona.
This isn't supported by RAW at all. It isn't even reasonable to assume from a game design standpoint. The agent was made with certain limitations and I believe these limitations exist for a reason - to prevent agents from being better than personas, i.e., better than hackers which is what Serbitar and company object to in the first place.
I'm with you there. That's true. But if you want to extend the analsys to, "...therefore, agents are better." Sorry, RAW doesn't say that and the rules clearly give the edge to personas.
There's a bunch of stuff listed that personas can do. But you choose to read "personas or agents" whenever you see personas listed in the book or in this thread, so nothing I can say is going to change that. Some rules apply to agents, and some to personas. Agents are not the same as personas. You shouldn't assume rules apply to agents just because they apply to personas. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:46 AM
Post
#147
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Wow, here I was worried that I was going to take the 'most senseless expression of exasperation' award away from Frank for this thread, but you clearly topped us both. Good job.
Umm... yay?
Why would the publisher care? Do you think that would help? Maybe they play Shadowrun, too! Of course, knowing my luck, he'd just quietly chuckle to himself and go back to reading his original digital copy of Unwired. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:48 AM
Post
#148
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Publisher, bah. Wrong word, but if you don't understand my meaning you need to improve your Intuition score.
Write to FanPro, or whomever it is that actually makes these things (too damn many logos on the book), and ask them. The same people who produce the FAQs (which this apparently is) and Erattas. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:51 AM
Post
#149
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
it doesn't change the Agent Smith problem. you can still have an unlimited number of agents helping you. they just can't multitask, your way. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 8 2007, 04:56 AM
Post
#150
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
I know, I know. I just couldn't resist. I thought it was funny, and I found your comment more or less unhelpful and insulting so I posted an unhelpful insultful comment, too. Not the most mature thing in the world, I know, but I haven't had any coffee since 6pm. I don't do that for two reasons: 1) Bothering writiers of a book after its been published is just... tasteless. Maybe tasteless isn't the right word, but I wouldn't want to be bothered by such things if I was writing for fanpro. Especially if I have to take time away from writing/creating stuff to answer disgruntled fanmail and clarifications. WIZARDS did a good job in hiring a full-time guy who did nothing but this for their magazine publications, but its unreasonable to ask people to do it who really aren't being paid to do so. 2) Ultimately, everytime anything "official" seems to come out for the Matrix rules it contradicts what's in the book and no one is left satisfied. The FAQ discussion on agents' programs for example pretty much directly conflict with what's in the book. Also, developers/writiers almost never want to post their reasoning behind their decisions leaving more folks disgruntled and confused than would otherwise be the case. Finally, if the writers/developers post online material or emails that can be considered "official" and this material isn't in the book, then the learning curve for new players coming into the game just skyrockets. No, it's better if all "official answers" come from a book or regular errata updates. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th July 2026 - 06:31 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.