 Stupid Question, Again on agents |
  |
 Feb 6 2007, 07:19 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Immortal Elf  Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670  |
ah, cool. my bad.
|
 |
 
|
|
Feb 6 2007, 07:21 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Just for fun...
Agent loaded as part of Hacker Persona and connected to Node B Node A - Persona, Hacker -- Agent Node B - Hacker Icon - Agent Icon (Has Hacker Persona ID/Commcode) ---------------------- Agent Loaded seperately and connected to Node B Node A - Persona, Hacker - Agent Node B - Hacker Icon - Agent Icon (Has it's own Commcode) ----------------------- Agent Loaded onto a different commlink and acting independently to connect to Node C Node A - Persona, Hacker Node B - Hacker Icon - Agent Node C - Agent Icon ----------------------- Getting complicated, since you can connect to multiple nodes... Node A - Persona, Hacker Node B - Hacker Icon (from Node A) - Agent Node C - Agent Icon (from Node B) - Hacker Icon (from Node A) |
|
|
|
|
Feb 6 2007, 07:22 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Agents have Personas? It's just the attributes don't have the same origin as the Hacker's persona, e'g Agents have thier own firewall to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 6 2007, 07:35 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
No, only users have Personas. Agents have Icons, though. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 6 2007, 07:42 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
So sad, must be a Turing thing... So if I analyze a Hacker Icon and an Agent Icon what do I see that's different? Behind each one will be a Response, System, Signal, Firewall, and program ratings? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 6 2007, 07:49 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
edit: removed due to improper context
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 6 2007, 07:52 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
try this on for size then: a persona is a kind of interface "program" thats uploaded to a node and streams data back to the comlink or other computer that the hacker is using. a agent on the other hand transfer itself rather then just a interface. why the SR matrix is set up like this i dont know. maybe for legal reasons? if your persona interface program is present on a node, you are in effect present on said node and therefor under whatever laws that the node is under? would make its simple for corps to bring the legal smackdown on anyone trying to "rob" one of their nodes... in any case it seems that the RL idea of ports, clients and servers are not present in SR. as for search bots, i dont think its ever stated in SR4 that when a hacker performs a search, he is jumping from node to node, looking over virtual lists of data and so on. more likely then not thats a mental holdover from earlier SR versions. and if thats so, then the whole "problem" of the variable dice pool search bot falls flat.
there are the same attributes, and both a persona and a agent is represented by a icon online. but saying therefor that a agent = a persona or that a agent have a persona is potentially a long stretch of logic... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 6 2007, 08:07 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
An successfull Matrix perception test indeed allows you to seperate Persona from Agent, and Agent from IC or Sprite, etc. AFAIS, you can't hack a Persona directly, but have to trace it back to it's home Node. An Agent, you could hack immediatly. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 6 2007, 08:16 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
edit: no longer relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 6 2007, 08:25 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Cetiah, I don't think that particular rant belongs on this thread. It's a strategy for handling the Agent Smith problem, but this is a thread about what he RAW actually says. And there is absolutely no way you can interpret the RAW as to saying that Agents can't use Hacking. For example:
Really, it's quite open and shut. According to the actual written rules, an Agent can hack into other nodes and can access nodes other than the one it is running in. This is not really up for debate. Whether this should be the case I suppose is, but presenting your house rules in this thread as if they were "interpretations" is misleading. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 6 2007, 08:26 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
removed: due to improper context.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 6 2007, 08:35 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
I apologize. I removed the offensive posts. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 6 2007, 09:20 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
I would agree with that interpretation based on the text you quoted.
This depends on your interpretation of uploading. My interpretation of RAW was that if an agent hacked into a node, the act of hacking uploaded the program. A successful hack means the virus (err... agent) was successfully uploaded. An unsuccessful hack means its just sitting helplessly on your comlink's node staring at the scary firewall. This would probably mean that if the agent was defeated in cybercombat there that it's over and done with. Agent deleted. Not sure if this was ever in RAW or not, but its a natural consequence of the interpretation and isn't contradicted in RAW.
The act of logging on uploads the program. Again, if that node is shut down, you're agent is toast.
Disagree. If it worked this way, there would be no reason for an agent to ever move off your comlink onto another node. Unless you're willing to completely disregard the paragraph about moving from one node to another, this can't be correct. The text clearly indicates that it was meant to be a limitations on the agents' capabilities/efficiency.
I think this was likely the original intent.
Agreed on all points.
I don't think this is covered in RAW for or against, but it is reasonable to assume it can send requests to a node to conduct activities that the node itself was made to facilitate. So it can request a piece of information if that node was designed to provide that information to any requests for it, such as search engines and the like. An agent can't browse around a node to see what's there without going to the node, but the node can communicate its contents to your agent if it wishes. Your agent can't really open a file on that node, but I suppose there might be some nodes that present any dumb clients that communicate with it to use some of its applications - so in that case, it's more like the node's system is opening the program for you. The Agent can hack into a node, because RAW says it can. It can upload itself for similiar reasons. Ravor has already mentioned how this works. ---
Are there contradictions? Yes, but they're workable. I don't assume that just because its in RAW it has to make sense. Do I agree that it should all work this way? Not neccessarily. As Frank advised, I am sticking with my interpretations of RAW for this post.
Exploit doesn't matter - Hacking is an exception that was specifically mentioned as being possible. Scan doesn't require you to be on another node. I could see Trace working either way. Even if it did work by "node-jumping" (as opposed to just requesting information from those nodes), your agent is simply moving from node to node. As it does its performance is potentially decreased, depending on what nodes it is accessing. A hacker can use this to his advantage. To use Browse to get standard publicaly-available information from search engines is no problem; to use Browse to look at all the files on a remote computer requires the Agent to physically be there.
I thought the whole point of hacking was to gain access. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 6 2007, 11:17 PM
Post
#39
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Where is the agent hacking the node from? From another node? Strange, why can it hack in from another node (very complicated) but cant do a browse action from there (very easy)? Same for loggin on.
Jackpot! But there is a reason: You dont want to pay the response cost (also mentioned in the RAW paragraph).
Strange, a persona can do exactly that. Whys that? Mystic energy from the brain?
So if RAW said pistols could shoot 50 meters and assault rifles could shoot 10 meters you would just take it and move on? |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Feb 6 2007, 11:32 PM
Post
#40
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 1-February 07 Member No.: 10,861 |
this is shadowrun. That is entirely possible. Internet people are no longer just trolls on forums, but often in real life, too.
We don't have agents in real life to compare this to. You have basically decided what you want an agent to be, and the RAW disagrees with you. You may as well be being annoyed that lasers have a limit to their range in star wars in space, when you don't think they should. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 6 2007, 11:37 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
No, I decided that there should be an underlying logic concept. If a rule contradicts another rule or its causally necessary assumption, then there is a problem. Whatever the rules is saying or in which environment.
I have yet to hear any explanation why personas can access other nodes and agents can not (contradiction 1) and why agents can acess other nodes to trace and hack in but cant to browse (contradiction 2). |
|
|
|
|
Feb 6 2007, 11:37 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Conceptually, I think the idea was that the firewall was supposed to be between the two nodes, so to speak. The firewall is the only barrier to access, and once it is taken down the agent can logon (upload itself) to do other stuff that requires access to the node.
I don't believe either of the above statements to be in the spirit of the rules. It is obvious that RAW never had any intention of giving users benefits for having two comlinks and it wasn't taken into account when writing the rules. It seems obvious to me that in reading the original paragraphs that you quoted a node was meant to go from node to node fairly frequently and this was meant to be a limitation. What you are describing is a complication, not a limitation. And I think you know it.
I don't know. Somebody already 'cried foul' when I tried to suggest a "better" way of handling things, so I'm limiting my statements to only what I interpret from the rules based on the information you quoted in starting this thread. I have been restricted from making value judgements on RAW or suggesting alternative methods. This is the way RAW works based on my interpretations. I don't know why. I don't see any reason to make ANY distinctions between rules for personas and icons, and yet, RAW does. Personas just work slightly differently according to the relevent sections of RAW you quoted. I'm forbidden from saying anymore.
No, I would invent a very complex system of interconnected house rules that I feel better represent these issues and enhance gameplay and post them up for others to contribute/modify. I believe in an 'open source' attitude toward game design. But I'm forbidden from speaking of these things on this thread. Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 6 2007, 11:43 PM
Post
#43
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Nothing against that, but why must it log on? That is the question. Why cant it just stay where it is and just continue to acces the node like it did while hacking it.
Maybe. But I am claiming that the rules are contradictory and should be changed if they mean what you think they mean.
No, you can just say: OK your right RAW is either flawed or interpreted wrong. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 6 2007, 11:54 PM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 1-February 07 Member No.: 10,861 |
I'm sorry, but since none of us are 2070s matrix engineers, we can't very well tell you exactly how it works, any more than we can tell you exactly why they didn't have wireless everywhere in 2060. by the way, neither of those are contradictions. They are part of the definition of the things you're talking about. A persona can log into other nodes from his comlink, and an agent can't, in the same way that a mage can summon fire spirits, but a shaman can't. that's part of the definition of what a persona and agent is. This may not fit the way you envision it working, but that's not the system's problem. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 7 2007, 12:00 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Why don't I suggest that you do something completely novel and ask the guys who actually developed this stuff (and I don't mean myself). Fire off a mail to the SR FAQ and see what the developer has to say about what was intended with the cited rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 7 2007, 12:01 AM
Post
#46
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Only a guess: Because the baseline assumption behind agents were that agents = IC. All the limitations that apply to IC apply to agents. And the designers didn't like the idea that a single IC could protect every node that its home node could communicate with. They wanted cybercombat to be a local affair. The underlying topography of the VR Matrix was being used to determine how agents work, not real life networking. If the designers had started with "what kind of things could a hacker do with just a copy of linux?" the entire Wireless World Matrix chapter might have turned out quite a bit differently. (I have more to say on this issue, because even my house rules work this way. But I want to think a little more on how I want to communicate my opinion, so I'll try to post later tonight.)
No, you have been saying that the two paragraphs that you quoted from the book mean something they do not. Or that they don't mean something they do. Either way, you are deliberately misinterpreting RAW and then accusing others of contradicting RAW when they try to correct you. RAW is seriously messed up in quite a few ways. But that's okay, really. I think of RAW as a sort of "1st edition" of the new Matrix rules. They made a lot of good decisions and its a dramatic improvement, which is all I require from a new edition. They rode with new concepts and new ideas and I'm not surprised if the whole thing is fundementally flawed. They couldn't start from scratch even if they wanted to because there's a whole host of fans that would be upset by that. They needed to combine conflicting ideas and make it work the best they could. I feel that my custom hacking rules work better than RAW, but it would have annoyed me if the SR4 hacking rules had turned out like my custom version did. My first reaction would have been, "What happened to my Matrix? I liked VR 2.0!!!" I imagine a lot of people would have had that reaction.
I say both. You are interpreting RAW incorrectly, purposefully ignoring the basic underlying assumptions that RAW is designed to support because you disagree with those assumptions. I'll also say that the basic assumptions underlying RAW are flawed, and a system that was built around different assumptions would work a lot better, be more realistic, and contribute to better game play. Then I would refer you to this website: Cetiah's Custom Hacking Rules |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 7 2007, 12:02 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Because developers ruin all the good arguments... :) Ultimately, tinkers don't ask questions like this because we want answers, nor do we necessarily seek to influence the game's development. We communicate to interact with other people, see what other tinkers have done, and contribute to bettering other people's games if we can. There's a reason we choose to communicate with forums and get opinions from people playing the game rather than shooting off emails to developers. (Yes, it's because the developers have blocked us. :D j/k) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 7 2007, 12:42 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Several reasons: - answers take some month most of the time - most of the time the answers arent very satisfying (my subjective opinion) - this thread is mostly about getting opinions from others - this thread is also about pointing out a potential problem to SR players (it turns out that there are two very different interpretations) - I use this thread as reference for the problem and to make sure I get every aspect of it (thats often the intention when I open threads, to find whether there are any arguments that survive my counter arguments, again maybe subjective) - an answer from rob et al. most likely will not clarify/change RAW anyways And finally I just didnt think about asking the devs. Maybe Im just not the dev asker type. Edit: Ah well cetiah summed it up very well. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 7 2007, 12:46 AM
Post
#49
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
Please specify. If the two paragraphs say that an agent must be running on the node to interact with it, then this is a contradiction with the rest of the rules and itself. I am not sayin that the rules say so. In fact, you do. RAW can not violate logic and consistency. If it does it is a problem.
This is OK, but they should have thought about the consequences. As it seems, they didnt. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Feb 7 2007, 01:09 AM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 1-February 07 Member No.: 10,861 |
I have no problem understanding this, and it seems non contradictory to me. Perhaps you could explain the contradiction. It says agents do specific things, and have specific limitations, and that one of those limitations is that unless they are latched on to a persona, their program has to be running in a node for them to act on that node. It seems very simple, but you seem to want the same rules that apply to agents to also apply to personas. I see no good reason why that has to be the case. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th December 2025 - 07:36 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.