Unwired: Not Happy, Taking requests Options

[Ryu]

- Dropout never concerned me, it should be a valid option. Tacnets are quite a benefit for those who opt-in. Dropping out will cost you 3 dice compared to everyone else, on more than one relevant pool.

- Agent Smith is not good for defensive use, because any hacker will just spoof one of the numerous legitimate matrix IDs and be on the "do NEVER attack" list. Dog-brains. Offensive usage can be dealt with by granting a +1 dp on Firewall+Analyse per consecutive attack in the same timeframe. IC storms would be undesireable unless you noticed massive agents in a node (hackers would spoof), and therefore you´d not waste the ressources unless under agent attack.

- I would have preferred SOTA rules for hardware + "free" software. Something as simple as increasing the lifestyle cost per response 5 or 6 chip / more for nexi.

[Synner667]

First of all, a Vampire weapon character can get up to 5 dice from attributes, up to 5 dice from skill, up to 5 dice from the weapon, up to 5 dice from discipline and any of a number of dice from specializations, circumstantial bonuses, and backgrounds. You're lucky if a Vampire swordsman is "only" rolling 20d10.

But second of all, we aren't talking about rolling d10s or adding dice together, we're talking about rolling a handful of cubes and counting hits. You can use very small dice without damaging anything because the dice are cubes and both roll and land very nicely at any size. Since you're counting 5s and 6s rather than adding up the totals on the dice, determination of result is very fast. Indeed, since TNs are static in SR4, resolution speed is actually very fast for each individual test. Rolling 16 SR4 dice is much faster than for example rolling 8d6 and adding the results of each die, and it can be much smaller in your hand than even rolling 8d10s. You can get a block of 36 d6s for less than 8 dollars, so the whole thing ends up as one of the easiest engines to deal with logistically on the planet.

I didn't say that was the max number of dice to use in Vampire, et al, I just said that having to use 10d10 was bad enough - do try and read what's written, not what you think I've written.

The fact that you think the price of dice has anything to do with the number of dice you roll is interesting, and indicates that you would consider writing each number that makes up Pi on a separate sheet of paper and carrying that around for use in mathematics an ok solution, because paper is very cheap and the sheer number of sheets of paper not an issue, and a calculator is more expensive.

This may come as a surprise to you, but how to read the dice has little to do with the number of dice used.

Physically having to roll 12+ dice to perform an action is just not the easiest of things to do [irrespective of how easy it is to read those dice and get a result - HERO does a better job for damage]...
...And used to be a very common thing to bitch about for Vampire, etc.

I roleplay to have fun, not to have to lug around 20+ dice, when I could carry around less than half-a-dozen...
...I've never really got my jollies by fondling large numbers of dice and counting numbers, or being obsessed with the minutiae of designing and building things using RPG rules [Traveller and HERO are much better for doing that, if you really want to], but I do hope it makes your life fulfilling.

I can reduce the basic SR mechanics to stat+skill+modifier or less on 2d6 [near enough], which doesn't give the same results statistically, but is a damn lot faster - which means my games are faster and more fun and don't require truckloads of dice just to get involved, which means me and my players do what we got together for [to have an enjoyable time].

Mr Trollman, I like some of the stuff you write, I like the fact that you write things up and change things when you think you can do better...
...But you're not me, and telling me that my dislike of rolling large numbers of dice is flawed because they're cheap and other games are worse is kinda missing the point.

[Synner]

Synner: People can and will carry multiple commlinks. They will turn all of them on with active personas accessed through AR. And they will load powerful Agents in them which are set to take orders from whatever Persona the character is actually using (this uses up a single subscription slot).

Cool, we agree on most of that. Miracles will happen.

The one issue that comes up is an important one. And it relates to that leap you're making in the final sentence: the assumption that "powerful agents" loaded into other personas taking orders from whatever persona the character is actually using don't fall qualify as "autonomous programs". I'm not sure what's behind that leap since there is no doubt in my mind that in such instances you are commanding the agent and not the persona. As long as an agent doesn't recieve direct commands from the specific persona it is loaded onto, it is intended to be treated as an autonomous program with all the relevant restrictions. It is, to use your words, "unsupervised" by the persona that it is loaded into and for all intents and purposes is on another node from the persona you are using (since it is loaded on a distinct persona, with a distinct OS, and has a distinct Access ID.) Bob could give me command of an agent loaded on to his persona on his commlink and it would be the same thing. I see no doubt in the fact that if an agent it is commanded to do anything by anyone other than the persona it is currently loaded into, then it is operating as an autonomous program to whatever persona issued the command.

To reiterate: what I have been saying, and specifically noted above, is that if you command an agent loaded onto a persona other than the one you are directly using its actions from that point on are treated as an autonomous program. The fact that it's loaded into an active persona doesn't change that, as long as the command didn't come from that persona. The agent is effectively based on a different piece of hardware, it is linked to a different persona, with its unique Access ID and if it is commanded by any other persona, it is effectively acting autonomously of a direct user interface.

Unless you are controlling/switching back and forth beteen both (or 10) persona at the same time and commanding the agents loaded on them directly, there is no mechanical difference between commanding an agent loaded on one of your other persona/commlinks, your toaster with no persona, Bob's persona/commlink, or Renraku's nexi—in all cases it is treated as an autonomous program. If you as persona A command an agent on persona B (assuming authorizations are in place) to hack something, persona B will just sit there and the agent will act autonomously. If it has to access a node it will present its software Access ID, not persona B's. If it has to move nodes to accomplish its task, it will be the agent moving not the persona.

As for running multiple persona ... While I wasn't lead developer on this project I do believe that Rob's intent was a one persona/individual rule (per the fiction on p.91), on the principle that multiple simultaneous simsense or AR feeds would be overwhelming (the one brain argument). However, since this didn't make it into the actual rules, we'll be looking into whether this requires errata (For the record I would personally favor a multitasking modifier in line with the multi-presence rules for simulatenously using multiple persona and the possibility of a Free Action to switch between active persona, however a simple one persona limit is a simpler solution - this will be discussed and any changes will appear in errata.) That said, there are (currently) no rules limits on the number of persona you can command, but—given that there is no provision in the rules for chaining actual user interfaces/persona, only hardware—each should be treated as distinct interface and handled separately (taking up separate Actions to control, Free Actions to swith between or subject to any modifiers the gamemaster sees fit for overlaying multiple persona user interfaces.)

Keep in mind that at this point agents are loaded onto specific persona, and if you want ten persona running, each has a separate interface and must be controlled separately. The gamemaster should feel free to impose any modifiers he thinks appropriate for multitasking 10 different persona interfaces simultaneously. You can have ten persona operating in your cluster, but each is a separate user interface and to the best of my knowledge there is no provision in the rules for chaining persona/user interfaces (only hardware). Each persona interface is linked to a distinct OS and Access ID.

Regardless of the above considerations, my initial point stands, agents loaded on persona are not under the command of any other persona, regardless of how your hardware is linked up, they are loaded into separate OS/persona interfaces and if commanded by another persona are treated as autonomous programs (they could be on Bob's commlink and it would be the same) with the inherent limitations that entails. Since programs loaded onto each persona including agents are specific to that persona, when they are commanded by any other persona (assuming authorizations are in place) they will act as autonomous programs (they're acting independently of direct command from the persona they are loaded into).

This means that your limits on Agents are not limits. It doesn't take time and money. It just takes money. And the money is less than 10 grand - the price of an additional link to run a persona and an Agent.

As I've mentioned above you're only half right. While a one agent/one commlink tactic is viable (and expensive) it does have serious limitations (independently of the considerations above). Unless you don't mind being traced there are additional costs in time and money to buying programs for all those commlinks and agents. If you do used cracked warez there is a constant overhead in time and/or money to program or find patches to keep your cracked software up to date. It takes time and/or money to patch your agent's access IDs if you opt to crack them.

it even takes time to manipulate several persona at the same time. For the record neither are the costs limited to buying extra commlinks and stocking up on agents. You have to buy programs (even if cheaply off the Cracker Underground). This is the sort of thing someone might do for a major hack, but its benefits are overkill for anything else. But it is neither cost or time-effective for most hacks. While an anti-corp or hacker group might decide to use this tactic as a one-time ewarfare attack, the minute an attack on this scale is detected the corp would launch one of its botnets, IC storms, or DDOS attack against the offenders.

The ideal set-up is to chain together a series of comms that are themselves either Clusters of commlinks or wired to peripherals such that they can each simultaneously run an acceptably large number of programs without slowdown. On each of these chain links you will also put a single Persona and loaded into that Persona you will put a single Agent. And then you will rock out with your cock out.

This is indeed possible, with the caveat that any agent not directly loaded into the persona you are commanding is subject to the autonomous program rules as soon as it is ordered to do anything.

The rules for clustering and stacking commlinks together are so incredibly generous that there is no reason to not do it. You can "be" dozens or hundreds of users all with their own Personas and their own otherwise identical program sets. And you would be a damn fool to not do this. Unwired was clearly written with the vision of everyone running a single commlink and giving a damn about program limits. But the optimum play strategy is to not do that. For just a couple month's high lifestyle you can cover your body with commlinks and agents, performing tasks as if you were literally a small army of high end hackers rather than a single person. Heck, you can do this with no appreciable Matrix skill, and you will slam dunk someone who bothered to spend 400 BP on making a single 'link hacker be all he can be.

It is certainly possible, but there are built in restrictions. As I mentioned above (repeatedly), as long as they are not loaded into the persona that you are controlling directly agents suffer the limitations of running as autonomous programs.
You do indirectly bring up an errata point, and I'm grateful for you pointing out the oversight- another thing to add to the list. We did forget to note how a cluster node impacts Access IDs.

[Cthulhudreams]

How does the 'persona autonomous agent thing' work in terms of the rest of the matrix having some funky way of knowing how agents loaded into a persona get their orders.

I could

A) If I have 10 commlinks, which I am controlling vocally (I can even do that in the rules, carn't I?) attach 10 mics to them, run them all infront of me newsconference style and say 'hack into the server we identified last week and loaded into a script!' or 'Browse the intertubes for hilarious videos about kittens!'

B) I could email them all that

C) I could tell one agent to email all the other agents that]

But seriously, how does anyone else know what I've picked? You're saying that the rest of the matrix knows that I'm doing C vs A and responds differently to the agents. Whu? How do they know that? As fair as everyone else is concerned, I've got 10 persona's doing the same thing.

Also, you're completely wrong about it their being incremental costs aside from hardware. If I've already got one set of patched cracked programs, then I have as many sets as I want. Exception will be agents when you get around to errataing it, but that doesn't matter considering I have 10 personas.

[FrankTrollman]

And it relates to that leap you're making in the final sentence: the assumption that "powerful agents" loaded into other personas taking orders from whatever persona the character is actually using don't fall qualify as "autonomous programs". I'm not sure what's behind that leap since there is no doubt in my mind that in such instances you are commanding the agent and not the persona. As long as an agent doesn't recieve direct commands from the specific persona it is loaded onto, it is intended to be treated as an autonomous program with all the relevant restrictions.

I'm going to stop you right there. There is no way to stop the commands from being "directly" from the Persona they are loaded onto. You just put up a node script to have the Persona "write" an exact copy of any agent orders to the Agent that is loaded onto it and then you subscribe to the Persona rather than to the Agent. As Cthulhudreams said, the Matrix can't "know" that the Persona only gave the instruction because the Persona was instructed to give the instruction, so it's not possible for it to be treated any differently.

But that's the foundation of why I'm making a clean break with the official Matrix rules. The material I write and play with from here on out reference nothing between pages 205 and 240 of the main book, nor will they reference Unwired. And the reason is because in the vision that is currently presented it actually functionally matters whether I have a node script set up to have Agent.Smith.Hackastackbox4a rewrite incoming messages so that the message that finally reaches the Agent "originates" on one node or another. It actually functionally matters whether I have taken time out of my busy schedule to make the Computer + Edit (1) test to modify the Black/White List for Access IDs on my various devices. It functionally matters which devices are peripherals, masters, slaves, and cluster components. It matters what physical hardware I have various programs stored and running in, and it matters which of those pieces of hardware are the ones with currently active antennae and which are fed into other devices with cables and it matters what order that cabling takes place in.

The Matrix Topology segment is so jacked that it actually makes us care about Matrix Topography. And when it gets that complicated, bad things happen. And you can errata that book a hundred times and bad things will still happen because Topographical positioning + arbitrary computational infrastructure == Madness and =/= Sparta.

-Frank

[Synner]

You're looking at the equation from the wrong end. The rest of the Matrix doesn't have to make any distinction, all every other node does is prompt the construct that is accessing the node to provide an access ID. What access ID is offered by the construct varies depending on what it is and how it is operating. In it simplist form a persona, an autonomous program, an AI, etc provides a its unique access ID (in the case of personas this is the commlink's hardware access ID, in the case of autonomous programs this is an embedded software access ID). As Frank has pointed out there are ways of mixing it up, for instance accessing a node using a persona with a loaded agent means that the agent doesn't have to offer its own access ID (this is only required if it is acting autonomously of the persona it is loaded on).

I'm pretty sure you're confusing agents (potentially autonomous software constructs) with persona (to put it simply the OS user interface in a commlink.) but I'll take a stab at answering your points:

a) if you have 10 commlinks lined up as described and are controlling them vocally, you are effectively running ten personas simultaneously each with its own (potentially different) program load, each with its own (potentially different) hardware, and each with its own (potentially different) node ratings. Personas are user interfaces, they do not execute and perform actions autonomously, they do not even run scripts. In order for a persona to hack a site, a user must execute specific programs loaded into it and fiddle with the code, parameters, and configurations to get the best result (as represented by the standard Hacking Tests)—which is where a Hacker's skill comes in (and why using multiple programs on multiple persona should incur modifiers). You are, however, correct in implying that you could potentially issue the same commands to 10 persona/commlinks set up as described. This in no way changes the fact that 10 different commlinks with 10 different access IDs all try to connect to the node you want hacked. That this means 10 distinct persona logging on to the node. And that under the rules, the Tests for each persona/commlink should be handled separately, since the results might be different (actively performing 10 simultaneous Hacking Tests should incur either a modifier or force you to divide your pool.) Should all the 10 hack attempts be successful, 10 personas with their individual program loads have now logged on to the hacked node on 10 separate accounts (linked to those 10 separate Access IDs).

(In the eventuality that by 10 commlinks/persona you actually meant ten agents, all of the above applies, but since you are commanding the agent to access other nodes outside the personas host node it is acting as an autonomous program and subject to the limitations on p.110, it may however run scripts.)

b) I'm not sure what you mean. Using software on a persona interface requires you to actively execute and tweak the software (hence the Hacking Test), seems to me like there's some confusion regarding the distinction between persona/user interfaces and autonomous programs/agents.

c) Yup, this is correct, you can send the same order to hundreds of different agents all loaded with the same script in a variety of different ways. They would then go about their business as autonomous programs (per the rules on p.110 and subject to the restrictions thereof - the main one being the limitation on identical Access IDs which means all those agents would have had to be legally bought and sport different access IDs, or would have to have had their Access IDs patched).

"Nobody" needs to know whether the agent is acting autonomously or not, but the agent itself will use its own access ID when prompted if it is not being directly commanded by the persona it is loaded on.

I'm going to stop you right there. There is no way to stop the commands from being "directly" from the Persona they are loaded onto. You just put up a node script to have the Persona "write" an exact copy of any agent orders to the Agent that is loaded onto it and then you subscribe to the Persona rather than to the Agent. As Cthulhudreams said, the Matrix can't "know" that the Persona only gave the instruction because the Persona was instructed to give the instruction, so it's not possible for it to be treated any differently.

Frank, ultimately the point isn't actually whether the persona gave the instruction directly or if it was forwarded by a node script (this only affects whether an agent is acting autonomously of the persona or not).
Currently there are no rules for issuing scripted orders to persona (even with node scripts) because persona are simply user interfaces and don't have autonomous programming to do anything without the hacker actively initiating and participating in the action (which is why Tests use Hacking skills).

I could even argue that the node script trick you are describing is only possible on nexi (which allow you to run multiple persona on the same OS), since node scripts are by definition specific to a node and an OS, different commlinks (even chained) are separate nodes, have distinct OSs, persona, and access IDs. But then you'd argue that you could set up running node script on the "emitter" to repeat all commands from one commlink to another, and another running node script on the "reciever" to implement them and have the second (or fiftieth) persona perform them. To which I'd argue that the need for a Hacking Test implies that the hacker must take an active role in the user interface when a persona is involved and that its not just click and run. To which you might answer that the aforementioned node scripts could easily repeat any Hacker commands (possibly translating to a single Hacking Roll applying to all the chained commlinks.) To which I'd reply that adjustments need to be made that are specific to each Test/attempt and these may differ even between two identical systems using the same software simulatneously (as evidenced by the fact that Hacking Tests results can vary in those conditions.) And on and on and on.

So let's cut this short and agree to disagree. I wish you luck with your alternate rules.

[Cthulhudreams]

Synner I actually mean persona's loaded with agents (There are two methods for deploying agent in the book, one is to load them into a persona, the other into a node. So the first one of those options). Not either separately.

So while your chain scenario is quaint, I'm just using the persona's as carriers for an agent I'm loading into them. So, what I would do is bust out my 10 personas, load 10 agents, tell agents 1-9 to assist agent 10 in whatever he is doing when they get the 'go code' All the persona's are doing is acting as a vegative 'host' for the parasitic agent - which can act on orders generated via email or whatever.

So then I'd send an email to everyone with "Agent 10, exploit the node" and bust out my teamwork test for exploit with agents 1-9 (loaded in persona's 1-9) in support. Works fine as far as I can see. Agent smith is working great.

The only thing you are actually making difficult is relocating all the persona's once I have done something. The is no way to issue an order to move the containers (the personas) on mass to a new location. This doesn't matter in the defensive situation as I can move all the personas to the node at the front of my defense network, and then the agents can teamwork up on analyze or whatever. So corps can defend against hackers no problem.

It doesn't matter for things like browse, spoof and exploit that run from the 'home node' because again, I don't have to move the personas.

The only time it becomes really irritating is that when I've exploited in persona 10 - containing agent 10, he needs to edit the access list by himself (annoying) and then I need to ferry my remaining 10 personas in.

This is only a limitation, incidently, if agents loaded into personas cannot control the persona.

Lets walk you through a scenario.

I have 10 commlinks. I chain these together and log in all 10 persona's into the 'front node' and load a rating 6 agent into all personas. All persona's have my full suite of software 'on tap' and some stuff loaded obviously.

Now on the defense my personas/agents can

A) Attack x 10 any intruders

B) Analyze x 10 the node

C) Spoof x 10 for my new lifestyle or whatever.

D) Exploit x 10 into a new node

No limitation you've laid down in that post is going to stop me doing that.

Now once I've exploited my leading man into a node, I am actually slowed down (slightly) by your limitations

I need to edit in 1423524624532 more user accounts so persona 1-9 can come to support Persona/Agent 10, then I need to manually move the personas into the new node. This is a bit of a speedbump, but then I have 10 agents running in the new node just peachy.

[Cheops]

Persona /= Agent. Therefore you can't issue commands to the persona and have it operate independently.

According to BBB, an agent that does anything on a node in which the persona is not located is operating independently.

From Unwired, unless patched your Agent has the same AID as any agents copied from it.

All you've essentially done with your 10 commlinks is set up a botnet without doing any Mass Probes. Congrats.

You could still buy 10 different types of agents (ie. from different programmers) and have the same effect. For rating 6 it'd be 18,000 nuyen and 3000 nuyen per month. Then they'd all have different AIDs but you'd run into the little problem that all 10 would still have to hack in independently or else one would have to hack in, set up a backdoor, then the rest could come flooding in.

BTW, the corp would have to pay ten times the amount in up front costs to set this up. According to most GAAP the various subsidiaries would still have to pay at full price. Net cost to the overall Corp is 0 but that department's budget just went up by 200K.

[Ryu]

Side question, as you are having a discussion about specifics:

There are three potentially controlling entities for a node: OS(device user), OS(persona), and command program. I get the construct "persona", but what is command good for? A modern CNC control option would have a terminal running XP and some software from Siemens (or others), executing rather elaborate node scripts. SR has it the other way 'round.

[FrankTrollman]

According to BBB, an agent that does anything on a node in which the persona is not located is operating independently.

That was one of the competing interpretations of what the BBB said, but Unwired clarified that detail in long and explicit fashion. An Agent which is loaded onto a processor other than the one that is running the Persona it originated from is an Agent which is operating independently. It can still access other nodes and perform actions relative to them all it wants - as long as it does so under the directions of the Persona of the device which is running the Agent program.

But since you can just have the Persona set to repeat commands it receives in email to the Agent, that last restriction (which isn't in the book even, but merely in Synner's proposed errata) is completely meaningless.

From Unwired, unless patched your Agent has the same AID as any agents copied from it.

Yes we know. But also from Unwired, if your Agent "stays home" its AID doesn't ever get checked or matter. And "staying home" just means that the code uses up processor cycles on the home node, it doesn't actually mean that you aren't accessing other nodes and running Exploits and Edits there.

So yes, the entire Agent Smith AID limits thing is largely pointless because there is a much harsher restriction on how many programs you can run with how many processors. And the thing that lets you bypass the Processor Load Limits required to actually field an Agent Smith army also bypasses the AID limits as a complete after thought.

-Frank

[Synner]

I really wish I had the time to break that down but I don't. I'll be back when I do.

[Gelare]

I don't mean to drag out the Agent Smith discussion - since, ultimately, Synner is going to do what he thinks best and errata Unwired and Frank is going to do what he thinks best and make house rules, which are both totally fine - but if I could get a minor bit of clarification, I'm wondering if, even given all of Synner's proposed errata and whatever restrictions supposedly exist in Unwired, can the Doc Smith scenario be eliminated? That is, could I just put a few commlinks on my desk, stick Agents with Medic on each, log onto all of them simultaneously, and order the Agents (which we'll say, for sake of discussion, are acting autonomously) to spam Medic at my Icon while I use my main commlink to mow down armies of IC and spiders? Granted, it's not as much of a doomsday scenario as the full-blown Agent Smith army, but I think we could agree that invulnerable hackers (and, by extension, any other matrix entity) are not a good thing. So, is this still possible?

[Ryu]

That was one of the competing interpretations of what the BBB said, but Unwired clarified that detail in long and explicit fashion. An Agent which is loaded onto a processor other than the one that is running the Persona it originated from is an Agent which is operating independently. It can still access other nodes and perform actions relative to them all it wants - as long as it does so under the directions of the Persona of the device which is running the Agent program.

There is a difference between the requirements for making an agent independent and the requirements for considering an agent independent . The end of the first paragraph is no coincidence.

It CAN act independantly once it has "it´s own" hardware, it DOES act independently if the controlling persona has no command subscription to it.

[Ryu]

I don't mean to drag out the Agent Smith discussion - since, ultimately, Synner is going to do what he thinks best and errata Unwired and Frank is going to do what he thinks best and make house rules, which are both totally fine - but if I could get a minor bit of clarification, I'm wondering if, even given all of Synner's proposed errata and whatever restrictions supposedly exist in Unwired, can the Doc Smith scenario be eliminated? That is, could I just put a few commlinks on my desk, stick Agents with Medic on each, log onto all of them simultaneously, and order the Agents (which we'll say, for sake of discussion, are acting autonomously) to spam Medic at my Icon while I use my main commlink to mow down armies of IC and spiders? Granted, it's not as much of a doomsday scenario as the full-blown Agent Smith army, but I think we could agree that invulnerable hackers (and, by extension, any other matrix entity) are not a good thing. So, is this still possible?

Errata 1.5, on p. 219 Repair Icon [4]:
Add the following line to the end of the 1st paragraph:“An icon may not take any other action (in any node) while it is being repaired.�


Fixed 1.5 years ago...

[Mäx]

But since you can just have the Persona set to repeat commands it receives in email to the Agent, that last restriction (which isn't in the book even, but merely in Synner's proposed errata) is completely meaningless.

Except that a Persona is just an user interface, without an user it can not do anything at all, so no you cannot do that.

[Larme]

Well, I think it's well settled: if you misunderstand/distort/ignore the rules of Unwired, the game is broken! Shame on you, Catalyst! You should make a system that works even when people break the rules (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[Gelare]

Errata 1.5, on p. 219 Repair Icon [4]:
Add the following line to the end of the 1st paragraph:“An icon may not take any other action (in any node) while it is being repaired.�


Fixed 1.5 years ago...

Thanks, Ryu. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[WearzManySkins]

Well the Errata promises from the Devs are many and much promised but in fact are extremely short on delivery.

Arsenal has not yet gotten its errata, it have been since February, is UnWired going to somehow leap ahead of that?

WMS

[kzt]

This means that if the original commlink is disconnected when you switch commlinks in Hackastack, the connection to the account/node you were hacking is severed and you need to re-log on (usually a setback). If on the other hand, you leave the original connection on and manage to spoof and replicate the original commlink's Access ID (which may or may not be spoofed) and then try to access the same account, your duplicated Access ID will be flagged (p.101) and both accounts are blocked. In both instances you are"safe," but you're back (almost) to square one.

Without questioning the basic ideas here, doesn't that mean that a system that is defended by a competent sysadmin (who by definition has admin access on the corp nodes) will always win? Because he CAN play hackastack and effectively infinitely multiply himself for minimal money?

[FrankTrollman]

since, ultimately, Synner is going to do what he thinks best and errata Unwired and Frank is going to do what he thinks best and make house rules, which are both totally fine

Good point, a very good point. Honestly there is nothing to be gained from the continued talking about Unwired between Peter and myself. Peter will not budge, nor will I. He will make the things that he wants to make, which I will not like or use; and I will make the things I want to make which he will not like or use. That's the long and the short of it. We don't talk to each other professionally or socially, and there is no reason for us to carp at each other over something where we simply do not have common ground.

Honestly, it would probably be better for everyone if I simply didn't participate in any discussions about the content of Unwired at all anymore, so I'll endeavor to do that. Or not do that. You know what I mean.

But I am still interested in hearing from people who want my work to go in particular directions. I am obviously enough not particularly interested in hearing from people who want me to make do with the printed material in Unwired, and I'll attempt to maintain the discipline to refrain from responding to them. In the meantime, people who want to discuss the contents of Unwired and the specific effects it has on various aspects of the game should probably go get a new thread.

-Frank

[Kerris]

*posts in a thread where Frank argues with everybody*

[Ryu]

Yeah, by all means. If you have comments on something I wrote, don´t hesitate.

[MaxHunter]

Good luck Frank. (no sarcasm)

[WearzManySkins]

@Frank Trollman
For those of us who do not know where such will be taking place, could you tell us where this will be discussed?

WMS

[Jaid]

@Frank Trollman
For those of us who do not know where such will be taking place, could you tell us where this will be discussed?

WMS

i believe the intended purpose of this thread was to discuss what you would like to see in his rules. so i would say right here.