Why pick technos over uber hacker? Options

[PoliteMan]

If options aren't their own little program, why does RAW have us code them separately? I mean, in that case why not have each point of optimization add +1 to the threshold for coding a new program. It's written the same way every program, virus, agent, etc is coded. Typically, I consider them like a beneficial virus when I'm in doubt.

Per RAW, unless I've missed something, there's nothing to prevent a hacker from programming an option in his own node without attaching it to another program, or even having another program in the node at all. Yet something is created. The only logical way for me to resolve this is to put program options in the same class as viruses and trojans. It's a separate mini-program that acts through another program. Options just happen to be beneficial.

[Yerameyahu]

You code them separately *onto* existing programs. You're right, the given rules don't account for the case of programming a new program and options at the same time. They give rules for the program, and then options (*each* separate, so it could be several tests total). Given that some of the intervals match up, it's barely different from doing program+options in one (longer) test.

[PoliteMan]

You code them separately *onto* existing programs.

I don't recall anything like that in the RAW.

[Yerameyahu]

You don't recall *anything* like that? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

"If a character wishes to upgrade software he already has with new program options, he must possess the source code."

As far as I can find, there are only two ways to get options on programs: this, and buying them with options installed. I'm not claiming this is ironclad evidence of what I've presented as my understanding of the rules, but don't act like I'm coming out of left field with the crazy idea. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[CanRay]

Hey, what about Open Source Software that you can...

Oh, right, 6th World, silly me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Fatum]

Sixth World has OSS. Optionally.

[Yerameyahu]

Hehe. Anyway, there are a couple possibilities here:

1. Programs must be purchased with options, or have options coded into them in a source-code state (open source, cracked, self-coded). I take this side because it seems less open to abuse, more logical, and more in keeping with the fact that you can't buy options separately, but only as a preloaded part of programs.

2. Options can be coded separately and mix-n-matched onto any programs in a source-code state. This means you can code, but not buy, options (why? *shrug*), and that you can dupe them as much as you like. It *could* also mean they degrade over time, although the rules for this don't mention options at all; if so, it's another level of bookkeeping (luckily, you can just dupe them?). It's possible, on the other hand, that options are uniquely immune to degrading, which makes duping even nicer.

I feel like #1 has more merit. Neither is clearly the intent (or fact) of the RAW, AFAIK.

--
A separate question: what do you guys do when a program degrades to the point that it's no longer allowed to have all installed options (half rating, round down)? This would matter crucially at the Rating 6/Rating 5 threshold, obviously. Disable an option at random until it's patched up again?

[PoliteMan]

You don't recall *anything* like that? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

"If a character wishes to upgrade software he already has with new program options, he must possess the source code."

As far as I can find, there are only two ways to get options on programs: this, and buying them with options installed. I'm not claiming this is ironclad evidence of what I've presented as my understanding of the rules, but don't act like I'm coming out of left field with the crazy idea. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No, I mean I literally can't recall because my computer with all my PDFs is dead and so I have no way to check. Recall is all I have for...probably the next month until I can afford a new computer.

And I'm specifically referring to something requiring you to code program options onto an existing program.

And yeah, there's an optional rule for open source software in Unwired. It's, well, not bad but I can't recall any good reason to use OS given how cheap pirated options are.

Edited for Y:
Why wouldn't options degrade in the same manner as everything else?

I agree that having options as part of the program, rather than their own code, would be more logical in some cases. For example, it makes sense that an optimization option in a Stealth program shouldn't work in a Blackout program but it doesn't make much sense that a Targetting (+2 to hit) option on an Attack Program wouldn't work on a Blackout program.

As for abuse, I'm torn. If the option is an integral part of the program than the ability to code a R10 Stealth program with Optimization 4 is clearly RAI even if the RAW gets a little buggy. On the other hand, if the option is in a source code state, then that seems to make far too valuable for the cost.

[Yerameyahu]

Udoshi quoted that line on page 1 of the thread, actually, but I'm just teasing. How about something that specifically says you *can* program options standalone and modular? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) We don't have either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I do feel like that passage implies that you start with a program (source) and program options onto it, but obviously it's not explicit. :/ We *do* know that you can't add options (pre-made or otherwise) to non-source programs; I take this as another (very mild) point of support for my theory, though. Viruses specifically infect non-source programs, after all.

[PoliteMan]

So running with that RAI, there's nothing to stop someone from building a very simple nexus with their starting cash/first job and start programming their R10 stealth with Optimization.

So:
4 skill, +6 cyber, +5 programming suite +7 Logic +3 Feng Shui lifestyle will consistently get you around 8 hits on a test, which will get you a R8 stealth program in 2 attempts and the optimization in 1. If you're willing to drop 2 edge into the tests to reroll failures and rush the job on the Stealth you can probably get Stealth 10 in two weeks and the option in another 1-2 (can't recall if interval is 2 weeks or 1 month). I'm sure there's other ways to increase that dice pool but yeah, under that interpretation, the Techno stealth advantage will disappear by the time the Techno starts submerging.

[Yerameyahu]

Yep, the programming rules remain a mess: too slow for real players, too fast for munchkins. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) Personally, 7+ is military, period.

Can you use Edge twice on a given test, if it's Extended? Regardless of the answer, it's not like you're losing anything as your Edge refreshes. The only silver lining of balance is that you have to constantly patch your programs, which has a minimum time cost, multiplied by the many various programs you might want (kicking things back from overpowered to underpowered, nothing in between). Sigh.

How does the option debate affect this at all, though?

[Seth]

Yep, the programming rules remain a mess: too slow for real players, too fast for munchkins

Well put.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And yeah, there's an optional rule for open source software in Unwired. It's, well, not bad but I can't recall any good reason to use OS given how cheap pirated options are.

The biggest reason is that OSS is Free and Cracked Software is not... Pretty good reason to me...

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And yeah, there's an optional rule for open source software in Unwired. It's, well, not bad but I can't recall any good reason to use OS given how cheap pirated options are.

The biggest reason is that OSS is Free and Cracked Software is not... Pretty good reason to me...
You could potentially obtain OSS with Options (and it would still be free), as it is all GM fiat anyways...

[Yerameyahu]

Nope. 500% as expensive as Pirated, 50% as expensive as Cracked (assuming you're doing it yourself).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Nope. 500% as expensive as Pirated, 50% as expensive as Cracked (assuming you're doing it yourself).

Open Source also has the option (Alternatively) of being Free, if you are part of a Warez group, maintain a Warez Contact, and contribute to the group... Think of it as a Magical Group for Mundane Hackers. Therefore, it potentially costs you nothing...

[Yerameyahu]

If you're contributing, it's not free. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Anyway, my point is that, along with the *other* suggestions about Open Source, certainly don't make it better than pirated; probably not better than cracking, either, if you want anything good.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If you're contributing, it's not free. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Anyway, my point is that, along with the *other* suggestions about Open Source, certainly don't make it better than pirated; probably not better than cracking, either, if you want anything good.

Its just time though, nothing more... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

And, as long as you only need basic levels of Programs (Rating 4 or lower), then open Source is okay...

[Yerameyahu]

Time is money. Duh. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) You're right, as I said before. Let's restate it properly, again: 'if you only need crappy programs, Open Source might be better than cracking retail programs'.

[Udoshi]

You code them separately *onto* existing programs. You're right, the given rules don't account for the case of programming a new program and options at the same time. They give rules for the program, and then options (*each* separate, so it could be several tests total). Given that some of the intervals match up, it's barely different from doing program+options in one (longer) test.

Here's where you're wrong.

The source code for an option is not part of a program. Its its own source code.

An option is not made for each program, its the other way around: Programs are made for options. They have slots for them, but aren't obligated to use them.

Hell, the 'upgrading your own programs with options' rules basically specifically says you can copy an option to all of your programs by cracking it, or designing your source code. It also specifically says program coding is handled like any other software test(no special restrictions). The beginning of the program option section even says options are modular designs that are supposed to flexible addons and patches.

While some of the intervals DO match up, its definitely not "barely different from doing program+options in one (longer) test."
And thats because Patching is a week long test. Coding tests are invariably one-month-plus tests.
Rolling them together would more or less raise the time you need to apply one option to multiple programs by a factor of at least 4.

[Yerameyahu]

You mean, "here's where Udoshi disagrees". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That doesn't really make sense. There's no real reason that Options have source code at all (in rules terms; obviously, they have source conceptually); that is, the rules never appear to make a source code distinction for Options. Neither do the rules support (or deny, as I've said) your concept of "An option is not made for each program, its the other way around".

It does *not* "basically specifically says you can copy an option to all of your programs by cracking it, or designing your source code". I think you're mixing up the sentence's references to programs vs. options. There's no evidence that you can (or need to) crack any option at all, let alone copy it to other programs. I've already addressed the 'modular' bit, but to repeat: it seems to merely mean that options are *possible* at all, nothing else.

I don't understand your patching/interval point. Coding Options have intervals broadly similar to coding Programs. Patching is not involved, unless you're using the theory that you already have options premade. You can't assume *that*, because that's the central focus of this argument. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

--
… Do you think anyone minds how far we are from 'technomancer vs. mundane hacker'?

[Yerameyahu]

Going back to the early question of 'can you code a R10 program on a R6 commlink/nexus?' (Personally, I wouldn't allow military-grade at all without some kind of extra penalty, but that's another issue; the question is the same as 'can you code a R6 program on a R3 commlink?').

People agree that RAW seems to be a simple 'no'.

There's a possible vagueness of what 'potentially run' means, but that's pretty minor. However, there are certainly some simple house rules to allow this:

One option could be to simply double all intervals if you're using inadequate hardware, or, if you'd prefer a scale, multiply the intervals by 10% (or, 25+%?) per 'missing' Rating of the commlink/nexus?

Another option could be DP penalties (use the existing Inadequate Tools rules?); if you use 'mandatory' diminishing Extended Test DPs, this would hurt more. :/

A third is to increase the chance of glitches (and therefore bugs) in a direct way, as opposed to simple DP penalties. This constitutes a slow-down, because you have to debug.

Any/all of these could satisfy the balance between trying *not* to flatly disallow things, while also providing appropriate sacrifice/penalties. I'm sure other people have other ideas?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Going back to the early question of 'can you code a R10 program on a R6 commlink/nexus?' (Personally, I wouldn't allow military-grade at all without some Another option could be DP penalties (use the existing Inadequate Tools rules?); if you use 'mandatory' diminishing Extended Test DPs, this would hurt more. :/

Inadequate Tools is the one that I typically prefer... It is simple and relatively hassle free in that you don't need multiple rules to cover it. Hit 'em with the inadequate tools penalty and just move along... It is indeed painful with the Diminishing Extended Pool... we have used both over the last year or two...

[Yerameyahu]

I'm mostly worried the -2 simply isn't enough, by itself.

[PoliteMan]

Going back to the early question of 'can you code a R10 program on a R6 commlink/nexus?' (Personally, I wouldn't allow military-grade at all without some kind of extra penalty, but that's another issue; the question is the same as 'can you code a R6 program on a R3 commlink?').

People agree that RAW seems to be a simple 'no'.

How?

If the Optimization option is a part of the code itself, and not just an added option. then there's nothing to stop you from coding the option and then coding the program. It's basically just one program split into two tests. If optimization is a seperate entity then a R10 program isn't potentially runable but if the optimization is part of the code, it isn't just potentially runable, it is runable without any mods. All you need to do is code the option beforehand and then cope the option itself.

I think you're trying to have it both ways to prevent two kinds of (what you think of as) abuse. If the program option is external to the program, you can mix and match it to any program you want. If it's internal to the program, there's no good reason you couldn't code up an optimized R10 program on an R6 or R5 node.

Personally, I can't understand why you think modular options are such an abuse. Every Hacker pirates all his porgrams any, now he just pirates options as part of them and and even the most expensive will only increase the cost by about (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 1000.