 Decking, the SR3R way |
  |
 Apr 19 2007, 04:13 PM
Post
#301
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802  |
So yeah, I should actually be giving some input here tonight if I can finish my disco and Japanese paper on time. I'm not dead, honest!
~J |
 |
 
|
|
Apr 19 2007, 08:12 PM
Post
#302
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Heh, well there's a lot to talk about. I'll respond in detail later, but two really quick points: 1) O-7 and O-8 are meant as flavor text, things to be included in the new host design rules we'll have to put up. Of course there'll be exceptions to both; they're there merely to highlight the balance and flavor issues that option O can solve. 2) Re. spacial relations and distance in the Matrix: You're right there's a bit of debate here, and I get the sense that most of it stems from old SR1-2 terminology cropping up. I do agree that finding system resources is different from locating other Icons; the rules I had were for clarifying the Scanner program, not the Browse program. System resources--files, slave nodes, etc--should not be a free action to locate, and should not be using Scanner rules and utilities anyway. That said, the idea that you are forced to disconnect from one slave node and "move" to another "area" to, say, look up a file, is ridiculous. Are you forced to close your internet browser to open a document? Have you ever opened a second browsing window--or heck, any second window--without first closing the first? Have you ever moved/copied a file by opening two folders, then draging a file between them? These are all multitasking well, at least multithreading) operations, and anathema to the idea that you are limited to a single "location" that you can be on a host. As for finding out who's online. and how that's independent of "where" you "are" on a given host, well open a new window here, and look at the bottom of the page. That's what an el-cheapo Simple Scan would pick up, along with the member profiles ("anonymous" users are, of course, using their Evasion programs). An "Icon" is basically just a member profile you carry with you, though obviously more complex and more integrated to the originating user. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2007, 08:29 PM
Post
#303
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
You seem to be caught up on the disconnecting step, which shouldn't be a big issue. SR3 allows for you to monitor an operation without standing over it, I'd consider this to be like windows. However, when I need to access a document, I do need to minimize or resize my browser, and put it out of the way, focusing on finding the document. It's very difficult for me to have both on the screen at once, and I certainly can't interact with both at once. Nor are they both 'in the same place'. I need to 'move', navigating through the GUI, to get to the document. And I still am not sure how you imagine non-sculpted systems looking. Do you imagine just having a dashboard or a desktop, like modern computers? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2007, 08:36 PM
Post
#304
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
There's a standard set of iconography. Geometric shapes.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2007, 09:11 PM
Post
#305
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Yes, but is it all in one place, like a single VR room, where everything is at your finger tips and IC jumps out of corners at you? Or is it a complex architecture, where you actually have to move your icon from virtual location to virtual location to find and interact with resources?
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2007, 01:34 AM
Post
#306
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Okay, more detail now as I have more time. ((Damn, I wish this thing had SBLOCKs like some of the newer boards do...))
And, because it's also relevant:
Okay, my view of the Matrix, in detail. I'll start with UMT. As I see it, a host in UMT would usually be modeled as a wireframe interior of the building that the host is meant to represent (ie. where all its slave nodes are), much as you see in many TV shows and movies. Icons and system resources would be represented as geometric shapes, flagged in a user's vision with toggling text identifiers (results of Scan commands). The thing is, the physical distance, the solidity of walls, even the concepts of Line of Sight, are entirely meaningless in the Matrix. I could be "standing" on the representation of the first floor of an office building, and "see" people on the 11th floor just fine, because the only difference between me and them is an (X,Y,Z) coordinate. It's not like "moving" my Icon up to the 11th floor actually puts me physically or logically closer to everyone else on the 11th floor; our data doesn't get any physically closer to together or something silly like that. This isn't to say that you have to see everyone. You're free to limit your visibility however you like; most people would choose to make walls and other Icons opaque, for instance. But, if you so chose, you should be easily capable of "seeing" anyone on the host. The only reason you you should not be able to "see" someone is if your Sensor sweep didn't detect him, in which case he could be "standing" on your "foot" and still be unnoticed. As for sculpted systems, if the metaphor can't handle something this relatively simple, then the metaphor wouldn't have been chosen, or would have been revamped to make it work. The Matrix is a place of business, not some game like WoW; efficiency and economy of effort is the key. If you have to trudge over kilometers of virtual space to give a guy a virtual memo in cyberspace you're no better off than if you trudged that same distance to just hand him a paper copy of the damn thing, and worse off than if you had just called him on the phone.
Assuming, that is, you made Evasion legal. As it stands it's almost as illegal as Masking, and "legal" cyberterminals actually have Bod and Sensor ratings higher than their MPCP (p. 167, Matrix). So, are we suggesting that IC should either have Persona attributes below their Rating as MPCPs do, or that decks should have Persona attributes equal to their MPCP? Or do IC not have Masking, in complete disregard for the current rules which basically say that they do?
That was the big change here, making DF and IF equal to double the attribute, minus the opposing utility. This way we can be a bit more liberal about jacking up and down the DF and IF directly; since it's opposed by utilities on the host, things can be fine-tuned by adjusting what rating of opposed utility is being run. This kinda also goes in hand with my proposal in the SR3R main thread to slightly alter die rolls to increase the effective range of "plausible" TNs, but that is by no means necessary for this to work. Note that hosts themselves don't necessarily have an opposing utility yet. I'm also unsure they should, or what its rating would be.
Mostly for completeness. A lot of what I'm saying is for completeness; history has proven I can't really be contrite and unambiguous at the same time, so I'm going for unambiguous here. :)
Except as it currently stands it's not legal, nor is it a standard feature in legal terminals. You need a permit for it, just like you do a gun. Masking is just "more" illegal. :P
Well, yeah, low-level IC are basically laughable, except you have to waste actions to subdue or evade them, and if there are too many you can't keep up with them all.
V5 was mostly made for clarity, and to tie the rules together, seeing as they are related.
Well sure, if you wanted to look at everything it could be overwhelming. Like the current internet, the trick isn't so much getting the information, but picking out what's relevant from the crushing sea of what's available. That's what filtering/searching is for (or in SR terminology, the Sensor persona, and Scan and Browse utilities); most people won't be paying attention to everyone around them, just like you probably don't walk up to everyone riding the subway with you at rush hour and ask them their name, though if you're observant or very lucky you'll notice the shifty character dropping a backpack and leaving it behind to blow up the station.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apr 20 2007, 12:10 PM
Post
#307
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I do agree with your wire frame idea. That sounds reasonable. However, things DO have a logical position in relation to each other. Two people on the first floor are closer to each other than to someone on the eleventh floor. They look to be bigger to each other, show more detail, are less likely to be blocked by other stuff, etc. While the data is on the host, and the eleventh floor fellow may be closer to one of the first floor fellows than they are to each other (physically speaking). However, to the user in the system, the other guy on the first floor appears to be closer. So there is a sense of distance, relational positions and even regions (the first floor is a region, and is separate from the eleventh floor). Related to this, let's assume there are 400 items represented on each floor. Something right next to you is more likely to be noticed than something on the first floor, since there are about 4,000 objects between you and the farther object, blocking "LOS". As you filter, some of those objects disappear, but that isn't guaranteed to give you a clear sight from your position, while the object at your foot is always obvious regardless. So there is a benefit from being located 'next to' something. The only difference then between my idea is yours is you have to be somewhat close to the icon to interact with it. That isn't especially difficult, though. Matrix speed is faster than astral. You think the commcode and *zoom* you're there faster than you could dial. You see the toggle on the eleventh floor and *zoom* you're there. But it's still based on relational geography. You can't poof from outside of a host to inside a host without going THROUGH the walls of the host. You can't go from one LTG to another LTG without accessing the RTG. So you need to travel, and if you don't know what you're looking for, that can be time consuming.
Keep in mind, the IC doesn't actually have an MPCP. MPCP is hardware, IC is strictly software run on a host's hardware, whose processing power is much, much higher than any MPCP ratings. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 20 2007, 12:34 PM
Post
#308
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
And in my view it doesn't matter how "far" away something is, as "distance" in the Matrix is entirely immaterial. If your Sensor program notices something that you should know about it'll give you a warning you can't ignore (especially in Hot ASIST, ouch!). "Targetting" does not depend or have anything to do with "range" or "LOS" in the Matrix either, just like your emotional state has nothing to do with whether or not you're going to be hit with a bullet traveling at your face in RL; spacial relationships in the Matrix are completely irrelevant attributes, just like your emotional state is when you're facing a bullet. (EDIT): Note in particular that--in my rules and the book rules--it's your hardware, not your wetware, that's making Matrix Perception tests. And to your hardware, distance is nothing more than a display parameter, like Icon color or shape. Surely you're not suggesting that "smaller" Icons should be harder to spot than "larger" ones, or that, because of this, all Icons are forced to be the same size? And when you're on the LTG or another host, the reason you can't just "walk into" a foreign host is because, from your logical location, the foreign host is just an Icon, regardless of how large or complex it looks. It's not some arbitrary "wall", as we think of it in meatspace; they may as well be separate universes (and, thanks to sculpted hosts, they may well be separate universes).
I'm talking in terms of balance here. Let's compare Rating/MPCP value to persona ratings for different Icon types: Decker: MPCP value constant, Persona attributes (effectively) MPCP*(3/4) Agents: Effective MPCP value constant (= core rating), Persona attributes (effectively) MPCP*(2/4) IC: Effective MPCP value constant (= IC rating), Persona attributes (effectively) MPCP*1 What I'm asking is, how do we resolve lines 2 and 3 in a world where there is going to be no difference between an Agent and IC? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 20 2007, 01:13 PM
Post
#309
|
|||||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
For IC and agents, I would agree. They shouldn't have any particular difficulty noticing something on the 11th or 1st floor. But humans use human perception, and an object on the 11th floor should be harder to spot. It's smaller, it's behind clutter, etc. Just like if you have 40 pop-ups that jump up on your screen, it's harder to spot the original porn page lost behind them all. I think relational distances make for a more comfortable paradigm than "everything is right there and there's no reason for you to move where you are to get access to it". That isn't how we interact with the world, so it's very unnatural for us. It also doesn't make for very climactic roleplaying, since everything is 'roll your sensors... Okay, you find it. Roll to see if you can activate it. Oh, an IC has find you. Roll to see if you dodge it.' Are there any other votes on this? Should using the matrix require your icon move to use different resources available in the host? I have no opinion in relation to the second bit. I haven't used agents enough either way. However it seems to me that if an Agent is limited to half the power of the MPCP on the deck running it, an IC should be limited to half the power of the MPCP of the HOST running it. Since a host has an MPCP well beyond 16 or 20 in order to do everything it has to do, that would mean the IC's persona ratings are basically limited solely by software. An IC run on a deck would be limited like an agent is, and vice versa (so yes, if you manage to upload your agent to a host and run it from there, it would be twice as powerful). |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 21 2007, 01:05 AM
Post
#310
|
|||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Prove it. Show me the place--in any Matrix book, no matter what the edition--showing that the meatbod has anything to do with perception in the Matrix. I gaurontee you won't find it in SR3; the INT score has no place in Matrix Perception tests, Analyze/Locate X system operations, or anything that would ever imply what you are implying. Quite simply, it's unreasonable to assume that the job of deiding what's significant in a virtual setting is left up to the user, for anyone but the poor Otaku who has to process raw Matrix data through his wetware. Remember this is the future, where SKs and Agents not only have a certain amount of intelligence, but in some cases can do jobs better and faster than a meat counterpart.
Cinematics and battle choreography are important for the immersion effect, yes, but arguing that we should start creating visibility modifiers and LOS rules--including cover modifiers, and all the trappings of RL ranged combat--just so you can force your deckers to duck and weave their virtual Icons in virtual space is just silly. A decker's Evasion program will make the decker duck and weave and, er, "Matrix-dodge" an IC's hurled-Fireball Attack-6 program because it looks awesome, and because the guy who programmed that utility thought it would look awesome and included it. People's Bod programs will make them look all bloody and Bruce Willis-Style badass-looking when they get hurt because it looks awesome. Pretty graphics is
Oh come on, I'm not saying that deckers can't move, or even that they never move. I'm just saying that the Scan operation(s) don't imply or require movement, no more than reading your email requires you to print it all out in one long line, lay it on the sidewalk, and crawl down the block following the line of text. It's a silly waste of time in a world where we've developed the concept of a cartridge return, just like moving around to scan for active Icons is a silly idea in a world where location is just another editable property that the Icon transmits to the host to help other users render it/him/her.
Er, I think you got the wrong idea. Agents use their Rating as their "cirtual" MPCP value, for purposes of max. utility level, among other things. Their Persona attributes max out at that Rating*2, no matter how powerful the actual MPCP that's running them gets. It's actually a bit of a problem, one that makes Agents really tough to actually use for anything, because once their Masking is on to what it needs to be they've got almost nothing left for their three other attributes. IC kinda have the opposite problem. Their Persona Attributes are all equal to their Rating--they only get one Rating, actually, and it's used for everything. This would be a big problem if it weren't for the fact that your average decker has an Initiative much higher than the vast majority of IC, and smoke 'em the moment they win initiative with two 6S Attack programs, or a well-placed Cloak operation. Not that the dynamic is a bad thing; far from it. But we're cutting IC and Agents from the same cloth now, and we need to figure out if we want to keep it this way or try to fix it. Oh, and there's little to no indication that a Host needs an MPCP chip of any higher rating than its Security Value, because there are no host construction rules. That's going way on the back burner, though; it's not even close to necessary. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Apr 21 2007, 07:28 AM
Post
#311
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
complete tangent: i don't think that's true at all, at least in the sense you seem to mean it. the pretty graphics of Windows and other GUI desktops make performing many tasks more intuitive; command lines are inherently non-intuitive, not to mention requiring a lot more brainpower (and fingerpower) for even simple tasks. the fact that GUIs are pretty to look at comes in a very distant second, especially after years of using the same basic themes. re: perception, i'm of the mind that human perception should play a role. the idea that someone can't ever find anything that his deck doesn't cue up for him to see doesn't make sense to me. moreover, doing it that way doesn't mesh well with the rigging side of things. riggers, when they're jumped into a drone (similar to the way a decker controls his icon), roll their meatbody perception to spot things. the Sensor attribute of drones only comes into play when the drone is being controlled via Captain's Chair, or when the rigger wants to lock onto a target. i think the rules for Matrix perception should work similarly, if for rules parity if nothing else. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 21 2007, 08:44 AM
Post
#312
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well yes, I mentioned the efficiency issue earlier, though maybe I didn't highlight it enough. The quoted text was basically made to counter the argument: "If you could get away without moving in the Matrix, why would anyone ever bother to move?" and the answer was, "Because diving out of the way of an attack looks cooler than just ignoring it."
Riggers are an entirely separate issue. They use ASIST like deckers, but, unlike deckers, they are actually interacting with the physical world, albeit through an artificial medium. In rigger-mode you still use your meatbrain for Perception and such; that's in fact what a VCR is for and why it grants the bonuses it grants. The VCR grants its bonuses because it interfaces with the innate processing power of the human brain--a machine calibrated and optimized over years of learning to walk, identify objects, and manipulate surroundings--for dealing with the physical world. All of these things are directly applicable to driving, handling, and using a vehicle or drone in meatspace. None of those rules apply in the Matrix, because it's not a physical world. It's a world comprised entirely of data, creating a veneer of physicality only for the purposes of creating a useful GUI for human interaction. Gravity and kinematics are graphical constructs; the human midbrain's learned ability to walk is meaningless and irrelevant. Object recognition as it is in the physical world is meaningless; what matters is whether or not an object is an Icon, a process which is not intuitive to the human brain. Only the most basic of IC would ever look like a threat; most would be innocuous, extremely tiny, or even outright invisible to the "naked eye". It's the data that's important in the Matrix, not the mask it chooses to use. All that your meat eyes can see is the mask; it's either your Sensor programs or, if you put in the effort, your Computer skill, that tells you that the fly buzzing 100m away is actually a Killer-6 IC trying to attack you, and the troll with drawn guns looming menacingly is just some harmless kid. In a world where anything can look like anything, or nothing, or even a group of anythings, "physical" sight is not only useless, but could be seriously detrimental. Note btw that the Otaku do in fact use their INT mod as their Sensor program. This makes perfect sense, as it is the Otaku who are the ones who have developed the kind of learned intuition that would make wetware Perception relevant. A decker wouldn't; their brain just isn't wired that way. That's what computer programs are for. Note also that, in the original rules and again in my new proposal, you can use your Computer skill to make a Scanner sweep, and you're likely to pick up more that way because you can use Hacking Pool too. This is where your decker's INT comes in, not in raw Perception. It just takes a little longer because the deck isn't doing it for you as a Free Action. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Apr 21 2007, 12:06 PM
Post
#313
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to link it with your meatbod. I'm saying from your icon's position, some stuff will be easier to see than others. Whether you're in the Matrix or IRL, we still use 'human perception', as defined as having a certain range of bifocal vision, where smaller things are considered farther away and are overlapped by closer things. An IC program may not be restricted like that. It's run off a computer, and it may judge relationships and 'spatial differences' differently. Things whose name starts with an earlier letter of the alphabet may be considered closer, or it may be based off their proximity to the beginning of the hard disk or whatever. This is clearly non-human perception. I do agree that IC should generally be no easier to spot regardless of your natural perception. However, if you're looking for a given icon amid a mob of icons, without knowing precisely the tags you're looking for, you should be able to use perception. For instance, if you're looking for camera controls, you may be able to spot the camera icon which happens to be next to you without running your browse utility, because hey, it's right next to you. If it's farther away, or obscured by HR files, you'll need to do some footwork or use a utility.
I don't think I said that either :) However I DID say that interacting with an icon, like editing a document, toggling a control or whatever may require the decker move. So, in what cases do YOU think a decker should have to move? Not just for cinematics, I hope. As an example of both of these, when I run decking, similar icons are generally grouped together. If my decker has found the camera controls, there's a chance the access controls are nearby too. If they aren't already within view, it requires fewer browse successes. They're tools that would be logically grouped, so human perception, not just utilities, would reveal them. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 21 2007, 09:35 PM
Post
#314
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Yeah, I was misrepresenting your argument there quite a bit. Sorry about that.
Okay, while I agree that, to an extent, human perception does influence how a human interacts with his interface to the Matrix, I really don't think it makes sense to actually codify rules explaining exactly how. What you're talking about seems to me to be the realm of GM fiat, rather than something there should be actual rules for. Maybe a rules that in some cases deckers must make normal Perception tests to actually comprehend their deck's ASIST output. As for the movement issue, that should really be determined the same way the decker determines what his Icon looks like, because they're basically the same principle. "Physical" movement in the Matrix is an illusion, just as Icons are illusions. And, just as Icons are created by graphical representation programs coded into the decker's MPCP, Persona Attributes and utilities, so should the movements that Icon makes to perform various actions. So yes, just for cinematics; I don't expect to give a decker bonuses because he performed a complicated dance before logging onto the LTG, just like the Sammie doesn't get a bonus for saying a poem before shooting a guard. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 21 2007, 09:54 PM
Post
#315
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that's exactly why i think the meat should be important. look, the whole point of VR is that it can be used to make things intuitive, and therefore faster. moving through a 3d landscape and manipulating objects parallels real life--it allows you to create easy-to-understand metaphors, like putting things into a recycle bin to get rid of them. but doing that requires intuitive design--and if a design can be intuitive, it can be non-intuitive. for instance, you can make pop-ups that resemble Windows error notifications, tricking people into clicking them. the more intuitive an interface can be, the easier it is to trick people, because people will judge by the appearance rather than by the reality. the way you want it to work (and the way SR has made it work in the past), you're basically interacting with a virtual world via command line, completely disregarding the entire reason for having a virtual world in the first place. and, at the same time, this also gets rid of an interesting source of challenges that can be used against computer users. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 22 2007, 12:07 AM
Post
#316
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Such as what, exactly? Making a non-intuitive interface where the decker is forced to guess among random options at what to do to get what he wants is almost a classic example of bad GM-ing. Normal: GM: "Okay, you're in a normal-looking office. There's a row of filing cabinets across the back wall, a desk in the center of the room with the normal adornments, and a bookcase with a few books in the corner. What do you do?" Player: "Well, I'm trying to find a file, so I take out my flashlight (Browse utility), and shine it around the room (Locate File operation)." *makes a few dice rolls* GM: "Okay, your flashlight leads you to a folder in one of the filing cabinets. What do you do next?" How do you want to change that? Something like: GM: "Okay, you're in a normal-looking office. There's a row of filing cabinets across the back wall, a desk in the center of the room with the normal adornments, and a bookcase with a few books in the corner. What do you do?" Player: "Well, I'm trying to find a file, so I take out my flashlight (Browse utility), and shine it around the room." GM: "Shining a flashlight around the room doesn't work as a Locate File operation on this host. What do you try next?" --several failed attempts later, after a few Null Ops activate a piece of IC-- GM: "You notice a security guard out of the corner of your eye. He trains a gun at you and fires. What do you do?" Player: "I use all my hacking pool to improvise a defense, and dodge out of the way." GM: "Sorry, you were supposed to *take* the bullet for your hacking pool to count. Roll Bod vs. 6S damage." I'm engaging in hyperbole here to make a point. If the rules for interfacing with the Matrix become based around an entirely symbolic, subjective reality, the game becomes little more than "Guess what the GM is thinking." You basically end up playing a game of Calvinball, but only the GM can make up rules. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 22 2007, 12:59 AM
Post
#317
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i'm not saying you should remove the ability of programs to determine what icons represent. i'm just saying it shouldn't be automatic. if the decker uses his Browse program, he'll find what he expects to find. on the other hand, he could take a shortcut and say "there's a filing cabinet over there--i'm just going to open it and look through the files." the file cabinet might be IC in disguise, or something.
and, of course, changing the interface of a given host won't change the way your icon acts. if you've programmed your Browse utility to have a flashlight animation, it will do that no matter what host you're on, and it will work as a Browse programs. (you're probably aware of that, but others might not be, so i wanted to clarify.) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2007, 01:40 AM
Post
#318
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
So the only time when the interface with a host is non-intuitive (eg. not what you intended) is when you're not using any of your own programs? Basically, when you're interacting with Icons/resources on a foreign host? I'm not sure how playable that is, but okay, let's give it a shot. What letter is that nezumi? So, how will it work? Do we just apply visibility/range modifiers, like the tables for ranged combat and perception, for tests made on distant Icons/resources? What about size differences between Icons? What about Icons that decide to be really small or invisible? Should we give an advantage to the Decker who fashions his Icon to look like a fly on the wall, rather than a Troll? How about camouflage, or lighting conditions? It sounds a little silly to me, deriving mechanical benefits because your target Icon is telling your ASIST interface to make the target invisible to you. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 22 2007, 03:19 AM
Post
#319
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i agree, i don't think trying to apply specific situational modifiers is a good idea. i mean, range for one would be really hard to deal with, since Matrix movement is basically instantaneous. a general "more visible/less visible" spectrum of modifiers would be better. this Matrix visibility modifier would be affected by the presence of spam zones, deliberate concealment, and so on, and would affect regular perception tests made in the Matrix. making Matrix perception tests would work like making meatbody perception tests--roll Int against TN4 +/-mods, count successes. in addition to normal perception tests, deckers could take a complex action and Analyze an icon. if the Analyze test is successful, the decker gets reliable, detailed information on the icon he's looking at. similarly, the decker can make a Locate X test as a complex action, using his programs to locate and identify icons of type X (decker, agent, whatever).
if a decker fails a perception test, he identifies an icon as something it isn't. for instance, there might be an IC program hiding in that file cabinet. it's disguised as a folder, which applies a +6 TN modifier to regular perception tests made to identify the icon as IC. if a decker fails his perception test, he thinks the IC is what it looks like--a folder. if he passes, he notices that the folder is looking at him with red, murderous hate in its beady eyes. or, he could Analyze the folder, or Locate IC, and if his rolls are good, he'll be able to mark the IC for what it is. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2007, 03:57 AM
Post
#320
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
*shrug* Eh, I still think this is better off as an open-ended optional rule, something the GM can choose to apply as he sees fit. I especially don't like the idea of rolling normal Perception dice to notice things in the Matrix: seeing something before your deck knows it's there seems to me like seeing something before your eyes pick it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2007, 04:19 AM
Post
#321
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Eww, optional rules…
~J |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2007, 04:29 AM
Post
#322
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Yeah, I don't like 'em either, but this whole concept is so situation- and metaphor-dependent it pretty much has to be an "insert test-specific situation here" kinda rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2007, 11:51 AM
Post
#323
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Letter Z, alas.
I think this is a case where simplicity and GM's discretion is the rule of the day. There are so many factors that feed into making sense of the world your sensors pick up. How many icons make it past your filter? How well hidden are the icons and what have you set your deck to do to highlight them or negate those problems? Is the icon actively trying to hide its true nature? Does the host enforce a sense of distance, and what is this objects distance from you? The matrix is a completely human defined architecture, and as such, there's a wide range of options that come up. It isn't an optional rule in the conventional sense, but it is in that some hosts use it and others don't. That said, I'm still not sure if we feel there is a sense of relational distances between things? Are we agreed that sometimes if you're looking for A, you can find B right next to it without having to use utilities? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2007, 09:05 PM
Post
#324
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Letter Z, huh? Well, next up is AA, AB, etc. We've really got to knock some of those letters out. We can at least get rid of N; non-illegal cyberdecks are on p. 167 of Matrix; they just need to be relocated to the "main" book. I don't think there's really a debate over that. The rest of 'em have either been eliminated, or have many implied dependencies (Q, R, T, the new H, and the new W are kind of a set, for instance) which require long deliberation. Can we get a new list nezumi?
Well I don't have a problem with it, but again, as you said, "I think this is a case where simplicity and GM's discretion is the rule." That sounds so much better than "This rule is optional," doesn't it? :) (Edit) I still contend that the hardware and software should be more important than the decker's wetware when determining Icon/resource visibility, and even moreso for other Operations like Attack. With that in mind, I still think my proposals for Simple/Complex Scanning should work, but with a TN penalty for Icons that are occluded in some way. Including a short description of the human perception issue should be enough, IMO, along with something like "The GM is encouraged to impose penalties to System Tests made on distant Icons and system resources, or bonuses when the Icon or resource is particularly close. Such modifiers should be generally small (+1-+3TN), however, unless the server is extremely busy." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 23 2007, 11:31 AM
Post
#325
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I don't even think your scans would need any sort of penalty. The only 'penalty' would be that if the decker can't see an icon, he can't very well run a deep scan on it.
Z is sort of sparse, since I was waiting to see which direction the whole thing went. At first it seemed we were arguing relational distances, then relational perception. I think the solution to Z should be simpler even than what you said. Something like, "the host should have some logical structure to the organization of its files and slave nodes. If the decker is searching for the TSP files for 2066, most likely the TSP files for 2065 are stored close enough by that he can find it without the use of his Browse utility. A simple perception test may be called for to locate or notice a desired icon when it is close by the decker." (You may have some better verbage for 'close by the decker', though.) [ Spoiler ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd December 2024 - 09:55 AM |
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.