 IC Armies, Hackability of nodes |
  |
 Aug 28 2007, 12:38 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466  |
Yes it looks like the rules were written by people having something different in mind and the FAQ by a third one, who didn't pay attention to what was written :| (no offense to the devs, I know it's a hard task).
Sma: I don't want to turn that back into the same argument... Suffice to say that both options for agent are possible according to the rules, none of them is more logical or more intuitive (not to everyone at least). I've got my own vision and it's working fine (and I've been paying attention to all discussions about the Matrix/agents to see if there was anything that could break it). If you'd like to discuss it, please use PM. I don't think Dumpshock needs another of these topics. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 28 2007, 07:07 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Actually, they are. Your persona is the icon for your commlink made from your OS/running programs. In essence, your persona is the iconic representation of your node while it is visiting other nodes. It still is your node. When someone crashes your persona, its your commlink that reboots, the same as if they connected to your commlink and crashed its OS. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 28 2007, 07:34 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 24-May 07 Member No.: 11,743 |
I'm a bit confused here. It sounds to me like some of you are referring to agents as an AI of sorts, I was pretty sure those weren't around yet. I always thought that agents were programs that could utilize other programs with a limited intelligence, meaning that they could use them with a certain set of parameters but not with creative intelligence.
Some of you are saying that you could use a browse program to find something, or just tell your agent to do it. While this is true I understood that the Agent would just be using your browse program to perform the task in your place and the results would depend on how good the ratings of both programs were. With my understanding it doesn't matter if you copy an Agent 100 times and set all 100 copies to analyze a system. I think we're confusing the reality and metaphors a bit here. If you try to hack into a node with an Agent running analyze you may sneak past in VR by hiding behind a bush until the Agent passes, but in reality what you did is find a loophole or a workaround that fooled the particular agent/analyze program. So duping the same Agent program 100 times would be pointless once you passed the first one, they are all identical and whatever exploit you found to pass one will work on that same one and on all his copies until someone with creative intelligence takes a hand in the process. Sure a corp could hide some sensitive data behind 10 different agents each using 10 different analyze programs but they rarely do for the same reason banks only have 1 alarm system. They will have various different forms of security but after a point it's not cost effective because you have to assume that something is secure. This applies to the old "copy an agent a thousand times and an IC a thousand times them stick them in a thousand comlinks then attack a megacorp" They are still the same program all the copies do is increase network traffic. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2007, 07:39 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Man Behind the Curtain Group: Admin Posts: 14,871 Joined: 2-July 89 From: End of the Yellow-Brick Road Member No.: 3 |
I have a few questions and perhaps I'm just misunderstanding...
First. What about copy protection? The book is very clear on copy protection. Granted, once that is broken then you can copy the agents. Second. An agent and each piece of software an agent uses pulls down the node it runs on... I fail to see how you can run a dozen of anything, let alone a hundred on one node. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2007, 07:47 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Redjack. The agent is running on the commlink you put it on. Its connected to and attacking whatever you told it to, but it is still running on the original commlink.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2007, 07:54 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
BlackRabite: Yes agents have limited intelligence, but according to the rules, they have use their rating for hacking test. So according to the rules, a rating 6 agent is as good as a hacker with rating 6 hacking skills.
Personally that's something I'm not really fond of (and I don't think that agents with hacking skills should be legally available). As for sending the agent with the browse programs, there are different ways to see this, depending on how you consider agents. If you consider them as "agents in a box" (running on their own nodes, but being able to connect to any other node without moving themselves), it'd just replace your data search skill with their own. If you consider that an agent can't act outside the node he's loaded on, that means he'd be able to upload itself to nodes and browse them directly, which can be the only way to access some databases. About the ability to fool 100 agents once you fooled one, some might argue that heuristic in 2070 are better than now and that agents can learn and/or act differently depending on the occasion. They might support their point by stating that the agent rolls his analyze, which might show that it can analyze well or not. @Redjack: 1. Yes, once it's broken... but that's easy to do for corps. Especially since they probably have the source code of their agents. 2. That's a way to consider it. If you read carefully the rules, you'll see that nothing states that an agent can't run on node A but act on node B (just like a hacker will run his attack program on his commlink but will attack the IC on the node he's hacking). |
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2007, 08:57 PM
Post
#32
|
|||||||
|
Man Behind the Curtain Group: Admin Posts: 14,871 Joined: 2-July 89 From: End of the Yellow-Brick Road Member No.: 3 |
My point exactly... Its a never ending battle of scalability... Resources are not unlimited.. And those nodes running th agent off protecting other nodes are themselves subject to attack, being taken over and serving as a trojan to the protected node....
This is true for the companies that write agent software, but not for others. Also, its illegal for the ones who don't write agents. Whistle blowers would rat out the companies. This software is easily audited running on their systems... The ones who write the software still have to have the hardware to run it.
See scalability issues above. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 28 2007, 08:58 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
1) There is no copy protection if you have the source code for an agent (i.e. you wrote it yourself). You can make all the copies you want for free. 2) That's part of the argument. The RAW seems to say that agents run from the hacker's commlink or some other source node and their icon moves around like a hacker's icon (i.e. not degrading nodes that they are in). As far as I can see, the only way to fix the agent smith army problem is saying that agents always run on the nodes their icons are in or are trying to be in. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 28 2007, 09:02 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Redjack, you're right, resources aren't unlimited. But, as I've shown in other threads, its MUCH cheaper to buy and maintain a few more agents every year 3-5 or so, instead of paying for a security hacker. The agents can do everything just as well if not better, and they don't take a salary.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2007, 09:10 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
I think it's a lot easier to visualize the abstraction level if you think of Nodes as a Network, not a single device. Adding another machine to a network often doesn't make the network that much different. p. 204 "Th e Matrix a complex organism, a vast collection of billions of nodes all linked together in various networks that are themselves linked together." p. 208 "In order to enter some nodes (devices or networks), however— especially private ones—you must actually log in to an account." p. 211 "In active mode, you can both access and be accessed by other nodes (PANs, devices, and networks)." P. 216 "Node—Any device or network that can be accessed." Substituting the word Network for Node in almost all text of the Wireless chapter makes a difference in understanding. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 28 2007, 09:19 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Dire. If I buy 101 commlinks, and 100 agent programs and 100 analyze programs. I can have all my data on commlink #1 which is rating 1 across the board. Commlink #2-101 have an agent running on them and are rating 6 across the board with the agents/progs at 6. Commlinks 2-101 run one agent w/analyze each, all of them have the agent connect to commlink #1 and analyze on it. None of the agents suffer any kind of response penalty at all.
Thats the point I was making with it. In this example, commlinks 2-101 are what I was referring to by "seperate hardware" and "node" was commlink 1. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2007, 10:16 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 282 |
Heh, so much for that. ;) But back on topic.
Agreed on the the problem (now there's a surprise!), but I don't actually see how this is a solution. Unless having 29 copies ((less if you give them actual programs) of any old rating one agent try to access the all sixes ultrasecure node to drop its response down to one is actually what you were shooting for. Here's a completely different proposal for a solution to agents: Agents are sophisticated pieces of software that are close to Artificial Intelligence, in fact they are so far advanced that they at times seem to be able to read their users thoughts. By monitoring the input a decker is receiving and applying their advanced predictions algorithms onto it, they are able to perform many of the minor annyoing tasks a matrix user faces daily, thus freeing up his attention and time for the really important things in life. There are still rumors of independent agents roaming around, even after the disaster this led to last time (for details see Emergence). Rules: Agents come in two ratings. You can only ever have one Agent effect you at a time. Rating one Agents give the user an extra initiative pass (max of 4 passes per turn applies) for the purposes of using electronic devices or interacting with matrix objects, that the agent can access though the users persona. Rating two Agents are specialist systems that provide an additional two bonus dice to one of these skills: Cybercombat, Electronic Warfare, Hacking, Computer or Data Search. 5k for rating one agents, 10k for rating 2. But since that means dropping independent agents altogether it may or may not float anyones respective boat. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 29 2007, 01:58 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Honestly, those agents are fairly worthless. They're supposed to be the drones of the matrix, and having them do what you suggest makes them the smartlinks of the matrix instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2007, 03:20 AM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
You have to give agents programs. They can't do anything without them! Someone suggested limiting the number of agents connecting to a node to the standard number of subscriptions. That sounds good, are there any problems with that that I'm missing? (especially if combined with system degradation?) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 29 2007, 07:49 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
According to the rules, subscription links personas to nodes/agents/etc. but there's no mention of subscription between two nodes.
And if you do apply subscription limits to nodes, it'd mean that nodes can't handle more than a handful of users. You can decide to rule that big servers are clusters of small nodes connected seamlessly to each other so that a lot of users can be connected on the same server even if they are on a different node. That way one user won't get more than a few agents with him in his "node", but each user on the server will have the same number of agents in their own "nodes". But it means that you can't have two hackers together in the same "node". |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2007, 08:14 AM
Post
#41
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 282 |
Since I haven't seen an interpretation of Matrix Drones that doesn't lead to game balance problems, removing them from the game is the whole point.
They do not actually do anything! They fulfill their purpose just by accessing the node! Adding in copies of programs just makes it worse!
Being able to degrade any system to ones at will by dropping a shitload of agents on it ? Limiting the amount of agents to subscription limit only makes the attacker need more higher levels of agents with a bigger payload. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 29 2007, 01:44 PM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
If you abstract this, which is what the rules and dice rolls are about, you think of 2-101 as a network, they count as a single Node. Also, if you have Commlink # 1 + 2-101, together they count as a single Node. So you get Node/Network A (Commlink # 1 + 2-101) versus Network/Node B (1-100 + Agents) as a single contested dice roll That's what abstraction does. If you want to get into the individual machines and devices and network topography and it's effects, that not supported in the rules in any way whatsoever, hence all the discussions on the effects of topography. At the table it's going to boil down to the GM rolling some dice, and the player rolling some dice in a contest to resolve the result, and the abstract system supports that very well. I'm not interested as a player or GM in mapping out the topography of a network and the capability of individual devices on the network because it's a lot of work for which there is very little material benefit in the game I'm playing. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 29 2007, 01:55 PM
Post
#43
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
Making fun of my punctuation? Please try to show some maturity, this isn't the Pokemon forum. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 29 2007, 02:23 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 282 |
I wasn't making fun of you or your punctuation, and apologize for any perceived slight.
I have been asking for a couple of posts if your proposed solution to ASA is having agents needl to run on the node they are accessing or interacting with, and thereby letting copies of agents (and the programs those agents run) reduce a target nodes response. I also have been pointing out how that completely does not work, unless you add another layer of houserules, whose ramifications I am unable to even guess at, since you refuse to even acknowledge my first question, by either replying, asking for clarification. Given all this I am going to assume you are not interested in discussing your houserule. Which is completely A OK. It would have saved me time spent rephrasing my point in the interest of making it more clear, if you'd said that right from the start. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2007, 03:32 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
What is the rating of your new abstractly formed Node? Each of those commlinks can run a rating 6 agent with 5 rating 6 programs at full capacity, and all 100 of those agents can act in commlink #1 with no decrease in performance. If you abstract those 100 commlinks to a single node, then you'd have to add together all their system ratings. So then it'd be a node with a 600 system. But, it'd still be able to run all the agents as intended. Or, you could average their ratings, in which case it'd be straight 6's. And suddenly it can only run 1 agent instead of 100. Whats your point? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 29 2007, 04:17 PM
Post
#46
|
|||||
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
You can either try to figure out how to Add 1 + 100 Commlink ratings and figure out their affects and then figure out how they interact working against the 100 commlink chains, which involves a large order of math calulations, and rules which do not exist, which makes it all rather difficult to resolve. Or Abstract it to Node/Network of 101 versus Node/Network of 100, which is in the rules. Your choice. Your game. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 30 2007, 02:00 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Dire, what do you mean? What 1 + 100 are you talking about? And abstracting it to 101 vs 100? Why is it vs? The agents are protecting the commlink, not blitzing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2007, 03:30 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
This is a ruling I've been considering for a while:
What if identical copies of agents, AIs, (programs?) etc could not subscribe to nor operate from the same node at the same time? Only the first counts (or maybe most recent, but I'm thinking first). If you threw in SOTA rules (which is my easy deterrent to the logic 1 hacker) then accumulating 100 unique agents would be My SOTA rules: every hacker picks a random number 1 to 6 to assign to each program and agent (and sometimes 2 numbers for R&D intense things like exploit and firewall). Every 2 months or so game time the GM rolls a d6. If your program's number matches the die roll, decrease its rating by 1. Want the rating back up? Start coding, you'll have a new program written in no time I'm sure. (Please give feedback on this too.) I've always liked SOTA rules in regard to the Matrix even while I bitched about updating my characters programs. To me they reflected the constantly changing computing world. A several thousand dollar computer is usually just a paperweight in less than a decade's time. SOTA for things like cyberware? Not so much. The legs that made me twice as strong as a typical human suddenly don't because a new model came out? No. --But that's just my tangential ranting. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2007, 03:42 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Nice dodge, would you mind clarifying what you were saying in regards to my post?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2007, 01:35 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 241 Joined: 14-December 06 Member No.: 10,360 |
I like the idea of SOTA rules, but in practice, I'm really split. I feel like program upgrades should be included in lifestyle costs, but the upgrades are likely very expensive (greater than or equal to the cost of the entire lifestyle, depending on the lifestyle), so inclusion doesn't logically make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th July 2025 - 05:09 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.