 I can't believe this!, Cheaters and AIs |
  |
 Aug 25 2005, 04:58 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802  |
Let's set a reasonable minimum time for "success"—30 years. Note that that's not 30 years of work, that's 30 years of working on the project 365 days a year (leap days off!), 8 hours a day. To get under 30 years, we need six successes. Let's be generous and say he's rolling 20 dice with 3 karma rerolls—hell, we'll be extra nice and just call it eighty dice. Let's also give him the TN of 40.
Oh dear, the program I was using to calculate just choked on the number. It spit back zero. I'll post again when I've found something that doesn't round down the chance. (Edit: I ended up doing it by hand) ~1.211e-26%, a good order of magnitude smaller than your one success at TN 200. ~J |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 04:58 AM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
So he'll have an AI if he is still playing with the same group in 2023. I don't see that as gamebreaking. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 25 2005, 05:10 AM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 807 Joined: 9-October 04 Member No.: 6,741 |
What's the chance for one success? Compare that to the 200. It's the single success probability that creates the problem. That single success probability is the equivolent of the same plan that led to Morgan before the crews and everything else moved in to do the actual work.
It may not be. Some people view it as such. The whole issue of the TN is something I called bullshit on mainly because these people have had months to call me on it on the original topic. They never did. In fact, at around that time, someone actually thought my number was better than their number of 75. I can even link you to the topic if you wish. The fact is, ignoring it back then and calling on it now when none of the rules have really changed for the edition used is not really a good way to say you have an arguement. Edit: The topic: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...wtopic=6834&hl= Now, it says SKs, but the same number would pretty much apply in this case. Why? You have to have a SK before you can have an AI. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 25 2005, 05:27 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
To be honest, I hadn't really focused on that post in the thread. Either way it's not much of an issue for me personally—as far as I'm concerned they're two different ways of saying "no".
I will say that I like to think that I am growing and changing, both as a person and as a SR player (and GM), and so my opinions at one time do not necessarily reflect what my opinions will be at some later time. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 05:30 AM
Post
#30
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Complex programs never come out as planned. If they did, Windows would never crash and it wouldn't have a single security hole. This 175 man-years of work itsn't just coding time. It is writing entire sections of code when the first second third forth and fifth drafts didn't fragging work. It includes time spend ripping out your hair, banging your head against the wall, and taking a baseball bat to your computer while yelling every profanity known to mankind in frustration. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 25 2005, 05:37 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
I just had an inspiration!
What if everything came off as roleplayed, then something goes wrong with the AI. Either it "dies", or it is discovered it wasn't actually an AI, or something else that removes it from the game. When the players either IC or OoC want to know what happened, have them roll IC and let one of them discover that the offending player had fudged his numbers. I know real researchers who have done this, or their assistants wanted to keep their cush jobs and skewed results for them. In other words the cheater cheated IC, too. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 05:39 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
If the player just wanted to shock you by throwing up a 200 with a weighted die, he should've said something after the event akin to:
"Haha, I was just fucking with you, check out this die." But instead, he "let it roll". That's not playing around with the GM, that's cheating. If you keep him around, keep a really close eye on him, because a cheater once is a cheater again, almost without fail. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 05:42 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 187 Joined: 30-April 04 Member No.: 6,294 |
Or stage a run where some third party learns about the new AI and tries to acquire it by force. A tribe of otaku, for example, could be following orders from the DR to liberate the AI, or one of the Megas might want to pull it apart and find out how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 05:56 AM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
If the method for creating an AI was canon, I'd allow it. Such as it is, I will simply state that while AIs are canon, no one knows how one is created, so unless he is going to sulk in a corner if he is without an AI, then I'd tell him that I'd just GM fiat him an AI and see how much he enjoys that. Sure, if you are having fun killing Deus with a look and flooding the Matrix with AIs, I don't see why not. You get to fudge, he gets to roll his weighted dice. Unless, of course, you never fudge rolls or rolled behind a GM screen like me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 25 2005, 06:09 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
I like the "Cheat IRL/Cheat IC" idea, personally.
That said, there is already an AI, and the character is already dead, so leave it at that. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 07:27 AM
Post
#36
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 807 Joined: 9-October 04 Member No.: 6,741 |
I thought Windows was so bad because they took a penalty for not having a plan... Anyway, as I understand the rules, a failure of programming is represented by what happens when you fail to get successes. You work for awhile and then discover it is wrong. That 175 years would be coding combined with possibly the occasional work on hardware.
That's pretty much what this poll is to determine. Group vote should have taken care of this, but a simple failing in the system prevents it. The TN provided is the average chance, IMHO, of a person accidentally creating a SK or AI. That's about the only way it is possible with their resources.
I only fudge rolls on occasion when I am GMing. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 25 2005, 07:51 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,283 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 7,398 |
I'd let the AI stay. I like the death cult idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 08:19 AM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
I would assume that time time also includes troubleshooting, error correction, and debugging. Most modern programs are made of several smaller programs that are useless on their own but work together to accomplish whatever function. It is possible for one object to be incorrect while the others are perfect and it would screw up the entire program. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 25 2005, 08:29 AM
Post
#39
|
|||||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Well then... he rolled his weighted dice for this occasion, unless he used them without your knowledge before. :D |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 25 2005, 09:00 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 807 Joined: 9-October 04 Member No.: 6,741 |
It would be nice if this were a light event. Look, this group doesn't take to cheaters too well. In fact, we're banned from a couple of bookstores because of it. The idea the GM may occasional fudge a die roll is acceptable. In fact, I've "accidentally" bumped the table on occasion to increase a player's rolled result simply because I didn't want the character to die or the chance lost. The other GM has done it as well.
However, there is a big difference between the GM bending the rules to allow a player to live and the player using a weighted die simply because they didn't want to lose at a test. We are playing a game where stupid actions are fully expected to get you killed, and our campaign style is a lethal one. The players come to enjoy a gritty, life-or-death struggle with the occasional silliness. In fact, the previous sentence is taken directly from house rules the group agreed to. And, sometimes, it's not stupidity that kills you, but pure bad luck or you deciding to sacrifice yourself so the team can survive (see my post on the Ask AH topic for an example of this that didn't result in death). In the end, many newbies don't continue with our group because they cannot keep up with the level of danger and the often cutthroat nature of the players themselves. The point is, we play SR because we currently want a serious and dark campaign. Cheating ruins the fun for many of these players, most of whom have miniature books dedicated just to character sheets of deceased PCs. Hell, my autobiography is shorter than the list of dead characters I have. Cheating ruins the fun for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 10:08 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 |
Nullify the session, that's what i would do. As GM as well as a player. What ever is achieved by modified dices is nonexistent in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 10:18 AM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 7-November 04 Member No.: 6,811 |
I cheated in chess once by moving a pawn backwards. This wasn't just "back a step" backwards, but actually into the back row, to block a horizontal threat to my king. The game went on for about three or four more turns, my little pawn sitting there, before my opponent realized what happened. I thought the absurdity was amusing, he was surprisingly upset. I figure your player might have been thinking the same way. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 25 2005, 11:27 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 908 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Georgia Member No.: 7,270 |
I think the only disappointing thing is that the offending player's PC was killed off in a manner that didn't involve him being massacred by his own frankstein creation.
I would think the vivid description of his burning flesh while the AI cooked his brain like Hannibal Lecter would have taught him a lesson. So, that being said, i'm clearly for keeping the AI. Make it the nemisis of the remaining players. after a long effort, have them destory it. Let the players do the dirty work that way. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 11:47 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 |
And have them pay for their cheating fellow player? That is bad style.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 12:15 PM
Post
#45
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Just wanted to mention that I really like your idea, Mr. Man:
One could always interpret a person who cheats this way in life is likely to have a character who cheats -- in non shadow acceptable ways -- to obtain the results s/he seeks.
Hmm -- I'm not all that uptight about my gaming, but I think I would be irritated about that pawn too, Conskill: specifically because I see these kinds of games as a challenge of skill and strategy. Oddly enough, now that I'm thinking about it, the feeling is much the same as when one person in, oh, say a bridge or hearts foursome, doesn't really know how to play the game and doesn't care enough to learn from their experience. It completely throws the strategy for everyone else: not only negates, not only renders ineffective -- but renders pointless. I'd like to think I'd notice it earlier than three-four moves later, though :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 25 2005, 01:03 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
So, are you saying you have been banned from a few stores because of this one guy? If so, he is a liability. If he can't learn, dump him. If he actually stops cheating(you'll only know for sure next time you catch him), let it ride. I would make the AI unstable and regress back to a SK. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 25 2005, 01:55 PM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Are there any non shadow acceptable ways? I thought the very essense of shadowrunning was based on the very selfish and very material me first. Everything would be calculated on how it would impact me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 25 2005, 02:27 PM
Post
#48
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
I'm guessing it might have something to do with the extremeness of response to any cheater, whenever one gets caught ...? Bookstores tend to discourage furious screaming.
Assuming it's a universal "yes" to that last for the sake of argument -- although I think there might be some difference of opinion over that on these boards -- depends: do you want to have ongoing decent relations with your contacts? or your teammates, for that matter? As one example: if your fence contact notices you fast-talked them into far more money than they really think they should have paid for that bunch of crap you just unloaded onto them, what do you think their reaction will be the next time you try to sell something to them? Which, I think, answers the first as well: caveat emptor being a long-running truism of most private sales ... but also a measure of the degree to which you want to keep dealing with that person. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 25 2005, 02:32 PM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Man In The Machine Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,264 Joined: 26-February 02 From: I-495 S Member No.: 1,105 |
Oh, hell, I might let this all fly. The (now dead) PC could have just struck on 'something' spent the rest of his natural life working on a AI that will, in short order, be no smarter then your average watcher spirit. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 25 2005, 03:08 PM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 908 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Georgia Member No.: 7,270 |
How is having an exciting game where you defeat the evil bloody thirsty AI your idiot former teammate created a punishment? It sounds like fun to me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 14th April 2026 - 01:43 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.