Software on a Drone |
Software on a Drone |
May 26 2007, 09:47 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 1-December 05 Member No.: 8,031 |
As many of you, I'm working on a Rigger character...
So I'm trying to build myself a kick-ass step-van. Obviously I need to add Rigger Adataption to it. And it wouldn't be bad to put some weapon mounts. Once I've added weapon mounts, can I control those directly from the car, or are those seperate nodes? I can see advantages and disadvantages of each possibility. Also, what device rating would this bad-boy have? I assume 3, since that's the seems to be the standard, but I could believe 4 if we consider an armored van to be a security vehicle. That said, what rating pilot would it come with? 3? Naturally these could be improved upon, right? And what about the sensor attribute? Can I work on that to improve it? Anything else? Thanks:) |
|
|
May 26 2007, 11:25 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
You can control the weapons directly from the vehicle as a single node. If you hardwire the weapons into the vehicle then you cannot control them from "outside" the vehicle. If you make them wireless you can control them separately. However, that opens up more avenues to get hacked.
Device rating for drones is equal to their pilot. Pilot is usually 3 so you have 3/3/3/3 for your node. These can be upgraded normally. Pilot rating is listed in the book or else something appropriate based on designs in book. Yes they can be improved. I don't believe the sensors can be improved but you are allowed to upgrade it as per Vehicle Sensor suite in the sensors section. It has listed capacity and you can add whatever you want. You'll want encryption, stealth, and analyze on your vehicle node to provide some extra security. Stuff like data bomb, agents, and ic are optional. You'll need the same again on your weapons if you leave them as separate nodes. You'll probably also want to be running, or have available, the vehicle autosofts to increase its handling while running on the dog brain. Also, don't forget that if you SG the weapon mounts then you can add extra vision mods to those to increase the amount of sensor imput even more. |
|
|
May 26 2007, 11:29 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Ain Soph Aur Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,477 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Montreal, Canada Member No.: 600 |
What you are asking is not covered by any SR4 book yet, so obviously this is only IMO. You should be asking your GM these questions rather than the forum, of course, cause mileage may vary.
Anyway, here's what I think: Weapon mounts: could indeed be either way. Depends how they are wired. [u[By default[/u], however, I would say they are integrated to the main computer: they are not seperate nodes. I don't see why you could make each weapon a seprate node if you wanted too, though. I'd give it device rating 3 = pilot rating 3. Yes, they can be improved normally. |
|
|
May 26 2007, 11:35 PM
Post
#4
|
|||||||||||
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
I don't think weapon mounts come with aiming and control equipment. I think you'd need to also mount a smart firing platform for each weapon in order to control it remotely. Besides, then it would have its own fire control system, so you can concentrate on driving.
Assuming the smart firing platform, it would be 3.
Page 342.
Yep.
Unfortunately, there's currently no rules for improving the Sensor attribute. Hopefully that will be coming out in Arsenal, or we may have to wait for whenever the rigger book appears (it might be in Unwired, since the description on FanPro's page mentions vehicles, but at this point, who knows?). |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
May 26 2007, 11:51 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
actually, i would argue that the smart firing platform, much like the steel lynx and doberman, are device rating 4, with the pilot explicitly set to 3. for much the same reason... i have a hard time believing the smart firing platform does not qualify as "security" gear at the least :P
otherwise, what has already been said is about right :P |
|
|
May 27 2007, 12:16 AM
Post
#6
|
|||
Target Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 1-December 05 Member No.: 8,031 |
Good to know that I didn't just miss everything (although I obviously missed some things). My GM is currently offline--I think he's remodeling his mom's bathroom or something. Naturally I'll run everything by him before we play--I'm just trying to figure it out in general for now. Thanks everyone! |
||
|
|||
May 27 2007, 03:22 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Argue all you like, but read the stats and descriptions in the book first. Then don't argue with me, cuz I didn't write 'em. |
||
|
|||
May 27 2007, 10:18 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
this is the rule i was referring to. as far as using the rules from the book: nowhere does it give a device rating in the description of a smart firing platform. the chart on page 214 lists "security devices" as rating 4. therefore, except where the deviation is noted in the item description, it should have the normal rating expected for a device of it's nature, which is at minimum going to be security device, and with some room for arguing military device in my opinion. of course, if you feel that a smart firing platform is "standard personal electronics" i suppose you might have a point. This post has been edited by Jaid: May 27 2007, 10:19 PM |
||
|
|||
May 27 2007, 10:58 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
That's true. It never says the words, "Device Rating." It doesn't need to, though. A Device Rating is for when one doesn't have specifics, and those specifics are given in both the case of the smart firing platform and the drones (Pilot, Sensor, and software at Rtg 3 in all cases). In fact, the very table you cite has drones listed as Rating 3 devices. Perhaps it's the term, "security devices," that lacks the proper definition. Let's do a quick search ... and ... eureka! Page 326 has a list of security devices. Looks like it's just maglocks, key locks, and restraints. But wait! I see it also has a reference to page 251, let's take a look ... aha! There, buried deep, is a reference to automated systems. Oh, but it's listed as a security system, not a security device, and to top it off, it references drones again, and we already know that they're Rating 3 by default. But I suppose if we might be able to argue that the landscaping of a site has a Device Rating of 4, we could convince the GM. So sure, one might try to talk one's GM into letting one get an extra couple of dice for these devices just because security devices are generally Rating 4 and the equipment that is clearly listed with Ratings of 3 should actually be Rating 4 because they are often used in a security role. It couldn't hurt, especially if one already has a reputation for fishing or one is at a convention and will never see that GM again. I wouldn't, though. |
||
|
|||
May 27 2007, 11:12 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
so what you're saying is that unless it's in the "security devices" table, it's not a security device?
does it need a huge, flashing neon sign on it that says "security device" or something? it's pretty clearly *not* a regular item. the closest fits on that device rating table are security devices and military devices. those are the *only* legitimate uses for a smart firing platform. |
|
|
May 27 2007, 11:28 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
And yet every rating that would be covered by a Device Rating is clearly listed at Rating 3. Well, except maybe Signal. And Response. So I suppose one could argue that the Device Rating should be 4, but since everything else is explicit, then just the Response and the Signal are Rating 4, since they're not mentioned.
Or wait! Are you now arguing that a smart firing platform (the one with Pilot, Sensor, and Targeting autosoft at Rating 3) is actually a military vehicle, and should be Rating 5? I like it. Why try to weasel out two dice when you can go for four? |
|
|
May 28 2007, 01:04 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
it wouldn't get 4 more dice. in point of fact, it wouldn't directly get any more dice.
it could potentially have up to 2 more dice from being a security device... but it's default pilot rating would be explicity set to 3. it's response, firewall, and signal, however, which are not specified, would be 4, because the default for security devices (and like i said, you're going to need at least some sort of security type excuse to legitimately use these things) so it would, off-the-shelf, be harder to hack, connect from further away, and act faster than if it was device rating 3. (iirc, anyways... matrix initiative is response * 2, correct?) if they want it to benefit any further from it's device rating of 4, they would need to buy a rating 4 pilot rating and rating 4 autosofts. |
|
|
May 28 2007, 01:30 AM
Post
#13
|
|||||||
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
If everything was at Rating 4? Sensor at 4 and program at 4? That's two dice over 3 + 3.
Firewall is equal to the Pilot Rating. Otherwise, that's precisely what I said. Except the part where it's more difficult to hack; it's not.
I thought you had upped the ante to Rating 5? Anyway, like I said, one would have to argue it out with their GM. But strictly by the book, the argument for a Device Rating above 3 is pretty weak. |
||||||
|
|||||||
May 28 2007, 04:17 AM
Post
#14
|
|||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
look at the precedent i pointed at. steel lynx and doberman *explicitly* in the FAQ written by the people who make the rules have a pilot of 3, and anything not explicitly listed in the drone's description at 4, which is the node's device rating. device rating does not override specifics listed in the books, it overrides things not mentioned. nothing in the book says the smart firing platform has a device rating other than 3, it is blatantly obvious that it is at minimum a security device, since there is no other legitimate use for the danged thing except military. which you keep insisting means i am trying to claim it is rating 5; my point is simply that there are only 2 legitimate uses for this thing: military, or security. take your pick... i personally would probably go with security, since it seems more intended for small arms (i would probably only call it military if it was designed mostly for heavy weapons and such, or bigger) so, the areas where it doesn't specify what the rating is, would be at 4. sensor is specified, so it is a 3. in fact, sensor isn't even a matrix attribute, so it would not be equal to the device rating, even if it wasn't specifically listed at 3 in the item description. firewall is not specified. therefore it is a 4. response is not specified. therefore it is a 4. |
||
|
|||
May 28 2007, 12:05 PM
Post
#15
|
|||||||||||||
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Do you read my posts, or do you just refer to points that you made after I've made them? We should keep arguing. Don't we get points or something for each post?
Actually, the first real-life smart firing platform that I ever saw was made for paintball. But the thing's got a big fat F in its Availability, so I can see your point.
When did I insist that?
I'll bite. What would I use to find the Sensor Rating of a camera I just bought?
Pilot Rating includes Firewall. Didn't I say that already?
Okay, I know I said that already. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
May 28 2007, 08:30 PM
Post
#16
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Of interest may be the fact that the explicit category of "Military and Security Vehicles" listed on p. 342, which would qualify for the p. 214 table as security and military device rating 4 and 5 have an explicit set pilot of 3 or even 2.
I would suggest a drone with an "R" availability would fit into the category of a security drone. |
|
|
May 28 2007, 09:10 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
the problem with R meaning security is that using that definition, the autodoc is a security vehicle, the doberman is not, the iball is not, the fed-boeing commuter (read: airliner/passenger plane) is, and so forth. there is no easy solution that does not involve GM discretion.
Aaron, as far as your camera is concerned, it doesn't have a sensor rating in and of itself, according to any rules i know of. your GM would probably want to make one up though :P |
|
|
May 28 2007, 09:30 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Okay, let me rephrase, then. What would you use, Jaid? |
||
|
|||
May 28 2007, 11:23 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
well, assuming you mean an automated camera, i'd probably just assign it a value based on what feels right for the situation :P
(translation: i'd just make something up on the spot, and otherwise not worry about it). in all probability, i would put it at the pilot rating of the automated program if it was being checked in real time, or possibly require a data search check. possibly i would just go with 3 as being fairly standard, since those things which tend to rely purely on sensors (ie drones) which are about the only thing i could use as a benchmark tend to have sensor 3, regardless of other ratings. |
|
|
May 28 2007, 11:25 PM
Post
#20
|
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
Heh.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th April 2024 - 06:52 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.