milspec
Oct 14 2005, 11:37 AM
1) If you want three Rating 4 Agents running (eg, one out on a search, one helping you hack, and one in your commlink acting as IC) do you need to purchase 3 agents? Or do they act like all other software, and you only have to buy it once and run it many times?
2) Is it required to attach cyberware devices to your PAN for interoperability? I realize it says cyberware devices can talk to each other directly:
SR4 p. 330 Cyberware
In addition to wireless functionality, most cyberware devices are equipped with a direct neural interface (DNI) that allows the user to mentally activate and control their functions. They can also be linked to other cyberware implants.
But what about a weapon's smartlink? Can it communicate directly with the user's imagelink and smartlink without needing to be routed through their PAN by their comlink?
3) And if that is the case, then could skinlink handle the connection? The Pistol's smartlink would be connected via skinlink, which would somehow connect to the imagelink and smartlink in their eye's?
Thanks,
milspec
Gothic Rose
Oct 14 2005, 11:42 AM
QUOTE (milspec) |
1) If you want three Rating 4 Agents running (eg, one out on a search, one helping you hack, and one in your commlink acting as IC) do you need to purchase 3 agents? Or do they act like all other software, and you only have to buy it once and run it many times?
2) Is it required to attach cyberware devices to your PAN for interoperability? I realize it says cyberware devices can talk to each other directly:
SR4 p. 330 Cyberware In addition to wireless functionality, most cyberware devices are equipped with a direct neural interface (DNI) that allows the user to mentally activate and control their functions. They can also be linked to other cyberware implants.
But what about a weapon's smartlink? Can it communicate directly with the user's imagelink and smartlink without needing to be routed through their PAN by their comlink?
3) And if that is the case, then could skinlink handle the connection? The Pistol's smartlink would be connected via skinlink, which would somehow connect to the imagelink and smartlink in their eye's?
Thanks,
milspec |
I don't know on 1, but on 3, you can utilize skinlinking exactly like that, just fine. That's what it's for, really.
Eyeless Blond
Oct 14 2005, 02:56 PM
For 1, considering how much more agents cost than anything else I'd allow it, though I might make you pay for a second agent to act as IC.
Azralon
Oct 14 2005, 03:27 PM
I've mentioned this elsewhere, so apologies to those hearing a broken record.
Before I go under the knife, I'd ask for all of my cyber to network using only DNI. I'm tempted to keep the old-fashioned hardwire interface for my gun and commlink, even.
I ain't interested in being a network node.
Eyeless Blond
Oct 14 2005, 03:41 PM
Agreed. If I want to have foreign signals invading parts of my body--even if they are replacement parts--I'll plug 'em into a datajack.
Jaid
Oct 14 2005, 03:56 PM
agents and IC work a little bit differently... i believe you could have an agent active and checking for problems, but i think you need IC to launch itself when there is a problem, agents have to be manually launched (or such is my understanding... that may be off...)
but anyways, you could certainly have an agent with attack, trace, or whatever active, and on patrol. you would just have to manually turn it on/off. or by some rating 1 IC to turn it on/off for you
PlatonicPimp
Oct 14 2005, 06:07 PM
As I read things, Electronics by default are Wireless, but converting them to wired takes no extra money, just extra effort on your character's part. Say you are turning off the wireless capacity. Tell the Doctor not to include the parts that broadcast. You are done. Now, Skinlinks are another issue-they require special modifications in the cost of 50
. But wires are free. (Just troublesome at times)
Keep in mind though that Average Joe 2070 Probably jsut lets everything be wireless. He doesn't think in terms of security, but in terms of convienence. In fact, he leaves most devices wireless becausze it never occurs to him not too. So yeah, his cyberware has wireless connectivity, even though it doesn't need it. He never thought to turn it off. If you ask for non-wireless goods, they will be available, but the clerk may look at you funny and might contact the cops to report 'Suspicious activity".
So yes, your cyber interacts with other cyber in your system without wireless connectivity. You can link other systems to your brain with physical conductors (Such as wires) through a datajack or trodes. This will keep you safer from hacking.
Also remember that almost everything comes with an RFID tag these days. GET A TAG ERASER!!!!! This is the most vital peice of gear a runner needs. Without it anything they have on them is bradcasting. Granted, it's like a drop in the data bucket, and would be a pain in the ass to locate someone by the RFID of their clothes, but it is possible, so get rid of those tags. And don't think your Cyber comes tag free. I bet those damn corps put RFID, maybe even security grade RFID tags into all the cyber they produce. Twould be a pain if the cyber you tried so hard to make hacker-proof broadcasted on demand when the corps wanted.
Eyeless Blond
Oct 14 2005, 11:57 PM
QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
Keep in mind though that Average Joe 2070 Probably jsut lets everything be wireless. He doesn't think in terms of security, but in terms of convienence. In fact, he leaves most devices wireless becausze it never occurs to him not too. So yeah, his cyberware has wireless connectivity, even though it doesn't need it. He never thought to turn it off. If you ask for non-wireless goods, they will be available, but the clerk may look at you funny and might contact the cops to report 'Suspicious activity". |
Why? So I don't want my cybereyes to give me brain cancer by shooting me up with radio waves; that's not "suspicious" so much as "prudent".
Jaid
Oct 15 2005, 02:19 AM
besides... many shadowrunners will have gotten their cyberware through, shall we say, "non-standard" channels.
the shadowclinics don't care, and the corp/government clinics probably prefer it to not be wireless, so they wouldn't likely be looking at you funny, IMO.
i think when the book says people look at you funny for wanting non-wireless stuff, it's talking about clothes, and vehicles and such, that you might buy at a normal store.
NightRain
Oct 15 2005, 02:41 AM
QUOTE (Jaid) |
i think when the book says people look at you funny for wanting non-wireless stuff, it's talking about clothes, and vehicles and such, that you might buy at a normal store. |
If that was the case, it wouldn't have explicitly mentioned that cyberware is wireless as well.
If you are running cyber with wireless turned off, it will raise eyebrows. It won't get you arrested or anything, given that old style pre crash cyberware presumably still exists, and it won't be wireless, but it may let someone notice you when they otherwise might not
But what does it matter, you have a DNI to most cyberware. Turn off wireless when you need it, turn it on when you need it. It doesn't make sense to restrict your options by removing it completely, /or/ by leaving it on all the time
Jaid
Oct 15 2005, 02:48 AM
no, my point is that given the usual place a shadowrunner will be buying cyberware, the people there are payed for not asking you for ID, a license, or any of that other stuff. what makes you think they're gonna raise eyebrows if you ask for non-wireless gear?
NightRain
Oct 15 2005, 02:53 AM
QUOTE (Jaid) |
no, my point is that given the usual place a shadowrunner will be buying cyberware, the people there are payed for not asking you for ID, a license, or any of that other stuff. what makes you think they're gonna raise eyebrows if you ask for non-wireless gear? |
Ah, sorry, I misread you. No, you're right, they're not going to care. What I was meaning is that say, a security drone hovering around Bellvue might care if you are walking through the middle of the burb with all of your wireless devices turned off
Vector
Oct 17 2005, 02:25 PM
QUOTE (Jaid) |
agents and IC work a little bit differently... i believe you could have an agent active and checking for problems, but i think you need IC to launch itself when there is a problem, agents have to be manually launched (or such is my understanding... that may be off...)
but anyways, you could certainly have an agent with attack, trace, or whatever active, and on patrol. you would just have to manually turn it on/off. or by some rating 1 IC to turn it on/off for you |
IC is just an Agent with a different name from everything I've read. You need to load them into the system the same.
Although, I'm not sure I've seen any rules on loading Agents/IC on boot. I would assume it is something you can do easily though. The question would be whether or not the Agents/IC would be loaded before or after wireless connectivity of your commlink (or other device) was established.
Bandwidthoracle
Oct 17 2005, 02:36 PM
QUOTE (Vector) |
IC is just an Agent with a different name from everything I've read. You need to load them into the system the same.
Although, I'm not sure I've seen any rules on loading Agents/IC on boot. I would assume it is something you can do easily though. The question would be whether or not the Agents/IC would be loaded before or after wireless connectivity of your commlink (or other device) was established. |
IC only starts running when it has detected an intruder. So in that respect it is a bit different from an agent.
Eyeless Blond
Oct 17 2005, 03:31 PM
Actually I think it's the Commlink's firewall that detects the intruder, then activates the IC in response. So I guess that's just a customizable part of the firewall:
As I see it, the way it works is that the user sets up what happens when the firewall detects an intruder. They can tell the user (who will usually send some kind of backup); they can reboot the machine; they can do all the other nifty things that are mentioned in the active alert section (p. 222-3), and/or they can activate an Agent to fight off the intruder. Agents activated by firewalls are callid IC; that seems to be the only difference.
Now Pilots, those I suspect are different, though they are priced the same. Agents are coded to do Matrix work, while Pilots are coded to do drone work. And so you have to buy them seperately, but an Agent and an IC program is the same thing, differing only in the manner in which they are activated.
That sound right?
Vector
Oct 17 2005, 03:37 PM
"Activated" vs "run" vs "loaded" is causing confusion I think.
The firewall tells the IC/Agent to go after a particular user, but it isn't loading the IC/Agent right there on the spot (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) because that would normally take time (don't have a page reference on me, but I believe it is a complex action).
Rotbart van Dainig
Oct 17 2005, 03:45 PM
Pilot is variant of System...
Eyeless Blond
Oct 17 2005, 04:11 PM
QUOTE (Vector) |
"Activated" vs "run" vs "loaded" is causing confusion I think.
The firewall tells the IC/Agent to go after a particular user, but it isn't loading the IC/Agent right there on the spot (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) because that would normally take time (don't have a page reference on me, but I believe it is a complex action). |
The opposite, I think.
Here's the deal: IC is an Agent that is not running/loaded/activated until the Firewall tells it to activate. It doesn't count toward the maximum number of programs the Commlink can run before it slows down Response, and it doesn't perform any actions. IC is nothing more than an Agent program that is run/activated/loaded by the Firewall as soon as the Firewall detects an intruder.
As an alternative, you can have Agents already patrolling your Commlink, actively searching for intruders. The downside here is that the Agents themselves are always running on your Commlink, taking up spots on your active program list and possibly lowering your Commlink's Response.
The moral here is that Agents and IC are basically the same core programming, the only difference is the external issue of whether a user activated them (Agent) or the Commlink did in response to an intrusion (IC). It's kinda like how molten rock is called magma when it's below-ground, and lava when it's above-ground.
Eyeless Blond
Oct 17 2005, 04:13 PM
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
Pilot is variant of System... |
That's Pilot as In "Pilot Rating". I'm talking about Pilot in terms of "Agents/IC/Pilot": the name of that type of program.
Isn't it nice to know that SR4 isn't immune to using the same word to have multiple meanings?
Rotbart van Dainig
Oct 17 2005, 04:20 PM
Always was, always will.
The Pilot software is installed instead of a System, though... not like Agents or IC, that run on a System.
Vector
Oct 17 2005, 05:27 PM
Is there a page reference where it tells you that IC on your commlink don't count against your running programs?
Beowurk
Oct 18 2005, 05:16 AM
QUOTE (page 227 @ SR4) |
Agents use the Response attribute of whatever node they are run on; |
QUOTE (page 228 @ SR4) |
If you wish for your agent to operate in the Matrix independently, you must load it on a particular node separate from your persona. The agent will continue to operate in the Matrix even if your persona goes offline. In this case, the agent doesn’t count toward your persona’s active program limits like running programs do, but it does count as a subscriber toward your subscription limit (see p. 212). |
So, you can see that an Agent running independantly of a persona on a given node is taking up system resources there. Even though you wouldn't bother counting it against other people's nodes (
), it's probably safe to assume that an active agent inhabiting a commlink would take up Response. So you'd probably count them for Response slowdown, but not against a persona's program limit.
QUOTE (page 228 @ SR4) |
For all game purposes, IC programs are the equivalent to Agents and function the same. |
QUOTE (page 228 @ SR4) |
Note that nodes are careful not to run so many IC programs at once that it affects their performance (see Response, p. 212). |
So, an active agent patrolling a commlink counts towards Response slowdown. An IC program which is not run until the Firewall tells it to doesn't count until it's launched.
So a hacker who's running as many programs as they can without slowdown would experience a sudden slowdown if someone tried to hack into their commlink and their IC programs launched.
EDIT: Whoops, Eyeless Blonde already covered this. More the redundancy me. What I want to know is: I figure that an Agent acts like any other software - buy once, run as many times as you like. But what about a given Agent's ability to handle types of hacking programs? Could I just buy a single Agent program then hand it different types of programs whenever I pleased?
With that interpretation, I see potential for a single outlay of 12500:nuyen: buying me a program I can use wherever as an agent army AND IC... load it into my commlink, my cyberarms, et cetera...
Jaid
Oct 18 2005, 01:28 PM
yeah, that sounds about right.
begins to make sense why corps aren't so bothered by the idea of having to defend wireless networks, doesn't it? protecting the network is cheap. much cheaper than having to renovate your building to install a system.
Vector
Oct 18 2005, 01:33 PM
By that same token, it's also pretty cheap to mount an army of Agents attacking a corp host.
Eyeless Blond
Oct 18 2005, 02:01 PM
QUOTE (Beowurk) |
So, you can see that an Agent running independantly of a persona on a given node is taking up system resources there. Even though you wouldn't bother counting it against other people's nodes ( ), it's probably safe to assume that an active agent inhabiting a commlink would take up Response. So you'd probably count them for Response slowdown, but not against a persona's program limit. |
Hell yes I would count it against someone else's Response. That's what you call a Denial of Service attack: you spawn a bunch of Agents on the other guy's node, slow him down to nothing, then pick him off at your leisure.
Jaid
Oct 18 2005, 02:25 PM
QUOTE (Vector) |
By that same token, it's also pretty cheap to mount an army of Agents attacking a corp host. |
yes, i suppose that's true... except that the corp can fry your brains and no one asks any questions, but if you go after a corp, you're usually gonna end up having a conversation with the Star. or KE. whichever.
plus they can always reboot their system. and call in corporate hackers. and probably have agents from other nodes of the network come in to help so the main node's response is just fine (is that possible? not sure on that one, at least...)
Vector
Oct 18 2005, 02:30 PM
Agents from other nodes would end up logging into the node under attack and would slow it down. I think. Sec hackers with agents on their commlinks would be just fine though.
Jaid
Oct 18 2005, 02:41 PM
right then. so the node under attack just piles in more and more agents until it's system 0, and then noone can do anything except those relying on another node (ie the corp hackers vs the hackers who organised the assault). considering all the agents would have pilot ratings of 0, at that point (except those loaded on commlinks), they would be insignificant, and the corp hackers could feel free to extract info from them... you know, fun stuff like where they came from, what their target is, what kind of mission (datasteal, crash system, etc) and so forth.
Eyeless Blond
Oct 18 2005, 02:44 PM
Pretty much.
This is, btw, why you don't pull a DoS attack with your *own* Agents.
Vector
Oct 18 2005, 02:50 PM
Provided that the Agents weren't "clean", containing only a pilot program with no identifying information. About all that you might get would be some information on what account loaded them on to the system. Granted, to do the attack that way would require a large number of complex actions (node's System^2 actions at most depending on it's load before you started). VR would help but only on nodes with a System of 3 or less could you do this quickly.
I would guess that a node under enough load to slow down would set off some sort of alarm so a sec hacker could come in and check things out since they normally would not run that many programs on their own. A node reduced to 0 might even reboot.
PlatonicPimp
Oct 18 2005, 02:58 PM
Yeah, I'd say that any security hacker worth the job would notice a DOS attack the instant the response started to slow. Additionally, I'd say that most large corporate networks have a distributing processing system between so many nodes that you're not trying to overload a response 6 machine, but thousands of them.
However, if you loaded your agent with another copy of the agent, and instructed it to load copies of itsef...
Vonn Neuman Agents!
Vector
Oct 18 2005, 04:21 PM
Does any one have any ideas as to how the load balancing that PlatonicPimp alluded to would work in SR4? Maybe corp nodes on server grade hardware rather than a commlink would get some sort of a multiplier to their System for load purposes?
PlatonicPimp
Oct 18 2005, 05:43 PM
Well, in specific terms, I'd say that corporate networks are made up of hundreds if not thousands of individual ondes, each having the response and system ratings we are familiar with. However, they are set up in such a way that programs running are run on a node that has spare processing power before it is run on one that would have it's response reduced. Thus, in order to reduce response times, you would have to fill up every node's processing power first.
In practice during games? You can't do it, the corps have too much processing power for you to effect.
Vector
Oct 18 2005, 06:08 PM
So by your thinking you simply wouldn't restrict corp nodes to the Sytem limit on active programs?
mfb
Oct 18 2005, 06:10 PM
heck no. otherwise, how would they ever get anything done? you'd need one host for every 2-3 people.
PlatonicPimp
Oct 18 2005, 06:10 PM
Not on any level that would ever effect gameplay.
Nikoli
Oct 18 2005, 06:10 PM
Basically. Otherwise to simulate Corp hosts would require system ratings so high as to preclude the chance of ever breaking in. I mean could you realitically break into a system running a rating 2000 system with a 1000 firewall in less than a month?
Vector
Oct 18 2005, 06:15 PM
Is there anything in the canon rules to explicitly say that or is this stuck being an errata/houserule?
Edit: Btw, I like the rule.
Jaid
Oct 18 2005, 06:19 PM
i think it's just a house rule, atm. hopefully that will change with wireless. when it comes out. which isn't for a while, as i understand it.
Vector
Oct 18 2005, 06:23 PM
I would love to see that book make it to second in the list, right after a book talking about the 'plexes that are now going to be highlighted by SR4.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.