Rampant abuse or innocent exploitation?
Ok, after talking through a few odd things in SR4 a few resource related questions came up.
The Doberman…
It costs 3000, includes a Pilot 3 worth 3000 and two autosofts worth 1200. It includes one weapon which can be up to a light machine gun worth 1800.
Even if the gun is integrated into the Doberman shell an average hacker/rigger can easily copy all programs and save 4200Y in resources in the beginning of the game (ok, not much in the long run but anyway…)
Now, what are peoples opinion about this? Since all pilot programs and autosofts can be upgraded and are software how would rampant abuse of this be halted?
Ok, abuse might be a strong word but if I want a pilot program I might as well buy the Doberman and crack the program.
Or, most probably, the program is integrated in the circuitry of the actual piloting chip with enough storage for software update.
The latter sounds reasonable but would it be logical from a corporate POW to use hardwired programming instead of consumer friendly programming with optional pilot OS and the control program of your choice?
Full Version: Copying drone pilot/autosoft
I thought you had to spring for the weapon seperately, it just came with a mount that was able to fit a weapon of the size of a lmg inside
Nope, the actual wording is:
GM-Nissan Doberman: The Doberman is a perimeter patrol
crawler drone equally effective during daytime or nighttime
conditions. Comes equipped with one weapon (LMG
or smaller) and Clearsight 3 and Targeting 3 autosofts.
Which means that it comes with an integrated weapon. I would say that one cannot jsut remove it and start shooting since it is probably lacking trigger and all the comforts a human would need to shoot it.
GM-Nissan Doberman: The Doberman is a perimeter patrol
crawler drone equally effective during daytime or nighttime
conditions. Comes equipped with one weapon (LMG
or smaller) and Clearsight 3 and Targeting 3 autosofts.
Which means that it comes with an integrated weapon. I would say that one cannot jsut remove it and start shooting since it is probably lacking trigger and all the comforts a human would need to shoot it.
While the rules say that a Pilot is a Pilot is a Pilot, you're well within your rights to rule that each Pilot program is specific to one vehicle or class of vehicles. So, you can't upload the Pilot from a car into a semiballistic and expect it to work. In this case, you can say that the Pilot has been specifically written for small crawlers, or possibly even just Dobermans. I'd go with the first, personally.
You're kinda out of luck on the autosoft, though. That one would be pretty universal.
You're kinda out of luck on the autosoft, though. That one would be pretty universal.
Well, the rules DO contradict that since pilot programs are universal and the actual autosoft is the skill. The pilot attribute would be like a character who is untrained (but they do not default, they just roll their rating) but for simplicities sake I'd rule that the software is hardwired into the drone with some space for upgrading the software into version 4.0 or something like that.
There would be a difference if one bought the V4 pilot program because then it would include the whole vehicle suite or something equally microsoftish and would be equally adaptable to ay kind of vehicle.
There would be a difference if one bought the V4 pilot program because then it would include the whole vehicle suite or something equally microsoftish and would be equally adaptable to ay kind of vehicle.
It's more than possible that Pilot programs are just encoded onto physical chips that you slot into the drone, and upgrading one is a matter of removing the chip and replacing it with a new one. A lot of modern devices store their firmware in a similar manner. That's probably what I'll rule; given the desire to protect corp secrets, in this case it deosn't make sense to do anything else, as you're just inviting piracy.
Still, that wouldn't stop piracy since all you would need would be an emty datachip and the skills to crack and copy the program unto the new chip.
Still, it wouldn't matter in the long run, at most a number cruncher would save 1-2 build points.
Still, it wouldn't matter in the long run, at most a number cruncher would save 1-2 build points.
Does it say how much ammo it can contain as well?
Personally, if it comes up in my game, I'm going to rule that Pilot programs are highly specific to the device - a ground/tracked Pilot is highly incompatible with a roto-drone (-4 penalty on everything) and still partially incompatible with other ground/tracked drones (-1 or so). Of course, if they have access to the source for a pilot, i'll give them a hefty bonus on modifying it for use in another drone.
I'm saying this based on the massive differences between the requirements of piloting a ground vehicle vs. an airborne vehicle vs. a naval vehicle, and even within a type; for example, ground vehicles have to worry little to none about balance and stability, beyond "don't drive up that half pipe lest ye flip over", but aerial drones don't have to worry at all about traction and surface conditions for movement and maneuvering.
And yes, this is all covered by various Autosofts, but I see it as a difference of degree; Microsoft Office vs. a graphing and reporting program, for example. They have a large amount of overlap in the area where the graphing program works, but the graphing program has more features in its area and does it much better.
I'm saying this based on the massive differences between the requirements of piloting a ground vehicle vs. an airborne vehicle vs. a naval vehicle, and even within a type; for example, ground vehicles have to worry little to none about balance and stability, beyond "don't drive up that half pipe lest ye flip over", but aerial drones don't have to worry at all about traction and surface conditions for movement and maneuvering.
And yes, this is all covered by various Autosofts, but I see it as a difference of degree; Microsoft Office vs. a graphing and reporting program, for example. They have a large amount of overlap in the area where the graphing program works, but the graphing program has more features in its area and does it much better.
The ´drawbacks to this would be that it would cost massive amounts of cash for those that wants to be diverse drone riggers since a ratign 4 pilot costs 10K...
I'd rather rule that it's an integrated OS that can be upgraded by a higher rating pilot program. Hardwired OS into the actual drone with enough space for upgrades, that way the pilot is just an upgrade to make it more intelligent.
The basis for pilot programs is that they have ALL the basics for controlling vehicles of all kinds, perhaps not exotic vehicles but most certanly everything else.
The autosofts improve their already basic skill into a more expert program. Just slapping a label on each pilot program would severily limit the options for a rigger.
I'd rather rule that it's an integrated OS that can be upgraded by a higher rating pilot program. Hardwired OS into the actual drone with enough space for upgrades, that way the pilot is just an upgrade to make it more intelligent.
The basis for pilot programs is that they have ALL the basics for controlling vehicles of all kinds, perhaps not exotic vehicles but most certanly everything else.
The autosofts improve their already basic skill into a more expert program. Just slapping a label on each pilot program would severily limit the options for a rigger.
| QUOTE (The Jopp) |
| Still, that wouldn't stop piracy since all you would need would be an emty datachip and the skills to crack and copy the program unto the new chip. Still, it wouldn't matter in the long run, at most a number cruncher would save 1-2 build points. |
A "data chip" is not the same thing as a ROM chip containing burned-in instructions. It may be possible to reconstruct a new ROM chip with the same instructions, but it's not generally as simple copying the data out and putting it in the new chip.
There are programmable ROM chips out there today, but there are also machines whose firmware is built into non-programmable memory, and requires you to physically replace the chip to upgrade it. Many printers have firmware encoded that way.
You can probably recreate the program, but I'd assign that a threshold of, oh, say, Pilot rating * 3, in an extended test with a three month interval.
It doesn't really matter.
Given the RAW, yes, you could do that.
But then again, why not copy the Pilot and Softs of that corporate drone when hacking it anyways and crack them later?
Given the RAW, yes, you could do that.
But then again, why not copy the Pilot and Softs of that corporate drone when hacking it anyways and crack them later?
| QUOTE |
| Well, the rules DO contradict that since pilot programs are universal and the actual autosoft is the skill. The pilot attribute would be like a character who is untrained (but they do not default, they just roll their rating) but for simplicities sake I'd rule that the software is hardwired into the drone with some space for upgrading the software into version 4.0 or something like that. |
No book handy, but I seem to recall that the sidebar on Pilots and Agents lists how a Pilot is only really good within it's specialty. So, I'd definitely say that the Pilot for a ground drone isn't going to be at its best when slotted into a rotorcraft.
| QUOTE |
| The ´drawbacks to this would be that it would cost massive amounts of cash for those that wants to be diverse drone riggers since a ratign 4 pilot costs 10K... |
Not if you rule that Pilots are specific to a given class of vehicle, as opposed to a single vehicle only. This way, if you have three crawler drones, you'll only need to buy 1 Pilot program for all of them, even if they're different models. This slows down the copy-protection abuse, but still leaves things relatively cheap.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| No book handy, but I seem to recall that the sidebar on Pilots and Agents lists how a Pilot is only really good within it's specialty. So, I'd definitely say that the Pilot for a ground drone isn't going to be at its best when slotted into a rotorcraft. |
No, that's what Maneuver Autosofts are for.
Pilots are generic, it doesn't matter whether you install them on a drone or your fridge.
I'm sure that the instructions for "lower altitude" on a chopper are much different from the "turn right and then stop" on a car. If autosofts were that versatile, they basically have to be AI's. AI's that learn much, much faster than humans.
Autosoft != Pilot.
There is a generic Pilot, and specialized Autosofts.
There is a generic Pilot, and specialized Autosofts.
This is almost a moot point. Any runner serious about drones is going to want to purchase a rating 4 pilot program.
The minimum complexity pilot program for a ground vehicle would not work in a rotor craft. Nether would the minimum complexity rotor pilot work in a ground craft, it would /expect/ to be able to go up. This is true at all ratings
A pilot program could be written that would work for all vehicles, it would be very complicated and hard to write but it could be done. I would have said it would be economically inefficient to do so but the corps may have decided to do so.
Edward
A pilot program could be written that would work for all vehicles, it would be very complicated and hard to write but it could be done. I would have said it would be economically inefficient to do so but the corps may have decided to do so.
Edward
I think you might be slightly misinterpreting what it is that pilot programs do. Pilot programs do not pilot, they think. Autosofts handle the piloting. It may help to think of the pilot program as the AI of drones and vehicles.
I disagree.
Not that a drone can operate without any autosite, but it cannot operate without a pilot program. Thus a pilot program must have the ability to pilot. Or is every drone now required to have a mauver auto soft.
Edward
Not that a drone can operate without any autosite, but it cannot operate without a pilot program. Thus a pilot program must have the ability to pilot. Or is every drone now required to have a mauver auto soft.
Edward
Well, after reading the description about Pilot programs it DOES seems like they ”only” think – but I hardly think that is the only thing they are there for.
The pilot attribute would most probably also stand in for the reaction attribute that is used for vehicles and the split second decision making of a computer makes defaulting a piece of cake so there is no modifier for pilot programs, thus they use their whole pilot attribute for piloting instead of suffering a -1D6 modifier like a human would do.
The Autosoft is the actual skill for driving a specific vehicle so they would be even more efficient. I think that a program dedicated for controlling a vehicle is expensive enough since it is a VERY common program, it is located in your fridge, car, fire alarm, house security etc. The best one can get at chargen is worth 2BP or 2 months of middle lifestyles, that’s very expensive.
Having it cost 10K for rating 4 for each vehicle group would be a bit excessive, but perhaps worth playtesting, in that case I’d definitely rule that it is generic software that can be downloaded and cracked. The “bought” program at chargen might very well represent that the character has already cracked the copy protection.
The pilot attribute would most probably also stand in for the reaction attribute that is used for vehicles and the split second decision making of a computer makes defaulting a piece of cake so there is no modifier for pilot programs, thus they use their whole pilot attribute for piloting instead of suffering a -1D6 modifier like a human would do.
The Autosoft is the actual skill for driving a specific vehicle so they would be even more efficient. I think that a program dedicated for controlling a vehicle is expensive enough since it is a VERY common program, it is located in your fridge, car, fire alarm, house security etc. The best one can get at chargen is worth 2BP or 2 months of middle lifestyles, that’s very expensive.
Having it cost 10K for rating 4 for each vehicle group would be a bit excessive, but perhaps worth playtesting, in that case I’d definitely rule that it is generic software that can be downloaded and cracked. The “bought” program at chargen might very well represent that the character has already cracked the copy protection.
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| A pilot program could be written that would work for all vehicles, it would be very complicated and hard to write but it could be done. I would have said it would be economically inefficient to do so but the corps may have decided to do so. |
You call 'write once, slap onto anything' cost inefficent?
And, yeah, Pilot is much more expensive then System.
| QUOTE (Edward @ Mar 28 2006, 12:40 AM) |
| I disagree. Not that a drone can operate without any autosite, but it cannot operate without a pilot program. Thus a pilot program must have the ability to pilot. Or is every drone now required to have a mauver auto soft. Edward |
Pilot alone does offer the ability to pilot, in the same way that the Agility attribute includes the ability to fire a pistol. My point was that the Pilot program isn't limited to just piloting, it's pretty all-inclusive actually. It's the Attribute for every skill a drone has (perhaps excepting sensor/perception tests). Autosofts are the skills.
The Pilot rating is the intelligence (or arete even if you will) of the drone in the same way that Agent rating is for Agents or IC rating is for IC. Or to get really out there, Force is to Spirits or Sprites.
Writing a program that can make full use of 3 dimensional flight ability, and accept that it is always going to be on the ground is much harder than you would think. I believe it would take les programmer hours to produce one pilot program for each class of vehicle (wield ground, crawler ground, fixed wing aircraft, rotor craft, VTA, ext, ext) than to make one program that dose them all as effectively. If you double the size of a program you take 10 times as long looking for bugs alone.
Edward
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| If you double the size of a program you take 10 times as long looking for bugs alone. Edward |
At the same time you can as a human default to ANY vehicle with a -1D6 to your Reaction Attribute...and I thought it was hard operating a helicopter...
The pilot program probably IS 10 times as big as most other programs since it is a semiintelligent operating system. It is at least 4 times more expensive than any normal OS for a commlink. Program size is basically a non-issue in 2070 but the generic pilot program is massproduced as a software.
Remember that the pilot program can handle most BASIC flight/drive/dive without much hassle, probably because assisted drive-by-wire system already integrated into vehicles that lets the basic human control a helicopter without too much problem, unless they do something stupid like fancy maneuvering.
| QUOTE (The Jopp @ Mar 28 2006, 03:07 AM) |
| At the same time you can as a human default to ANY vehicle with a -1D6 to your Reaction Attribute...and I thought it was hard operating a helicopter... |
Did you miss the part in the Skills and Linked Attributes table where skills in italics cannot be used by default?
Pilot Aircraft
Pilot Aerospace
Pilot Anthroform
Pilot Exotic Vehicle
have no defaults... you can drive them, or you can't, there's no 'winging it' for these skills, you have to be trained.
Another note: The drone's pilot program is it's dog brain. How well it can drive itself. If you are controlling the drone on a maneuver, you want a high skill rating or autosoft rating as that's what allows you to drive the drone. The pilot takes over when you're not using it actively.
| QUOTE |
| No, that's what Maneuver Autosofts are for. Pilots are generic, it doesn't matter whether you install them on a drone or your fridge. |
Found it. In the sidebar on pg 214, it says that Pilots can fail to understand commands outside their usual range of function, and goes on to give the example of a rotor drone ordered to collide with a go-ganger. Based on that, I'd definitely say that using a Doberman Pilot in a rotor drone is "outside it's usual range of function", and act accordingly.
| QUOTE |
| At the same time you can as a human default to ANY vehicle with a -1D6 to your Reaction Attribute...and I thought it was hard operating a helicopter... |
Untrue. Many vehicle skills do not allow defaulting. In fact, except for Ground Vehicle and Watercraft, *none* of the vehicle skills allows defaulting. So, no, you can't fly a helicopter a -1 to your Reaction.
Interesting...still, Pilot Programs are dedicated vehicle control programs for drones so they SHOULD have a basic knowledge in controlling vehicles, but at the same time there are some contradictions...
*Mailing Fanpro*
*Mailing Fanpro*
It would seem like "Maneuver" would be something bought/programmed by vehicle skill used (just like you buy shooting-type autosofts by weapon skill used) but "Pilot" is a generic piece of software.
Pilot + Autosoft seems to be the standard formula, so it's not unreasonable to approach the question from the point of view that Pilot should be handled as an Attribute (with the Autosofts functioning as Skills). However, vehicles don't take a -1 for defaulting to their pool whenever you're using the Pilot rating without an Autosoft contributing, so it would seem reasonable that rather than having no Maneuver (or whatever) Autosoft, vehicles come with what is essentially "Maneuver 0," the basic control systems for the vehicle, already coded in.
This is what allows a fairly universal "Pilot" AI to be interfaced between any number of vehicles... little things like "this is your range of motion, this is your handling capability, this is how you move in various directions" are hard-coded into the drone itself (the "Maneuver 0" program), independent of the Pilot program. When you add a higher-rating Autosoft on top of the Pilot rating, it's like using a Skill alongside your Attribute... the drone isn't any cognitively better at accomplishing that task (unchanged Attribute), but it has added coding to bulk up it's understanding of the specifics of the vehicle you've got it loaded into (upped Skill).
Pilot + Autosoft seems to be the standard formula, so it's not unreasonable to approach the question from the point of view that Pilot should be handled as an Attribute (with the Autosofts functioning as Skills). However, vehicles don't take a -1 for defaulting to their pool whenever you're using the Pilot rating without an Autosoft contributing, so it would seem reasonable that rather than having no Maneuver (or whatever) Autosoft, vehicles come with what is essentially "Maneuver 0," the basic control systems for the vehicle, already coded in.
This is what allows a fairly universal "Pilot" AI to be interfaced between any number of vehicles... little things like "this is your range of motion, this is your handling capability, this is how you move in various directions" are hard-coded into the drone itself (the "Maneuver 0" program), independent of the Pilot program. When you add a higher-rating Autosoft on top of the Pilot rating, it's like using a Skill alongside your Attribute... the drone isn't any cognitively better at accomplishing that task (unchanged Attribute), but it has added coding to bulk up it's understanding of the specifics of the vehicle you've got it loaded into (upped Skill).
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| In the sidebar on pg 214, it says that Pilots can fail to understand commands outside their usual range of function, and goes on to give the example of a rotor drone ordered to collide with a go-ganger. Based on that, I'd definitely say that using a Doberman Pilot in a rotor drone is "outside it's usual range of function", and act accordingly. |
Only there is no such thing as 'Doberman Pilot' - Pilot is as generic as System.
The usual range of function of Pilot isn't even defined, so that point is pretty moot.
But, as a sidenote, the Doberman would have problems when ordered to break through doors, too.
| QUOTE |
| Only there is no such thing as 'Doberman Pilot' - Pilot is as generic as System. |
Yes, there is-- you're using the Pilot out of a Doberman. I'd say you'd face the same penalties if you tried using the Pilot out of an agent or piece of IC. They're just not built for that sort of thing. Just because Pilot is a generic term, that does not mean all Pilots are equally good at everything.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Yes, there is-- you're using the Pilot out of a Doberman. |
No. You are using a Pilot, as given per Software table.
There is just one System and one Pilot - the latter is defined as a System with decision making capabilities.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| I'd say you'd face the same penalties if you tried using the Pilot out of an agent or piece of IC. |
Agents and IC, on the other hand, are defined via Software table, too.
Those are given a different set of rules - their MA depent on their primary rating and the Node they run on... instead of being interchangable and limited by Reponse like Devices.
Basically, there are no rules for exchanging the Pilot of an Agent, but there are for doing so with drones.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| They're just not built for that sort of thing. |
Where does it say that?
Even the example just says it is not able to easily understand acting in uncommon ways.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Just because Pilot is a generic term, that does not mean all Pilots are equally good at everything. |
Pilot is not only a term, but generic Software.
I can see where your confusion comes form.
| QUOTE |
| No. You are using a Pilot, as given per Software table. There is just one System and one Pilot - the latter is defined as a System with decision making capabilities. |
"Pilot" also applies to the decision-making software of Agents and IC as well as drones. Since you can't put the pilot from an Agent into a drone, it stands to reason that all Pilots are not interchangeable.
| QUOTE |
| Where does it say that? Even the example just says it is not able to easily understand acting in uncommon ways. |
Exactly. The Pilot from a Doberman isn't going to easily understand aerial maneuvering, because that's an uncommon task for a Doberman. Thank you.
| QUOTE |
| Pilot is not only a term, but generic Software. |
It's also an attribute. The Pilot attribute is the primary AI for drones, Agents, and IC, and stands in for a bundle of different things. As you pointed out, you specifically cannot swap out the Pilot from an agent into a drone. Well, it therefore follows that you can't just swap one Pilot out for another across the board.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| "Pilot" also applies to the decision-making software of Agents and IC as well as drones. |
Yeah, at least you got that right... partially.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Since you can't put the pilot from an Agent into a drone, it stands to reason that all Pilots are not interchangeable. |
That conclusion is only valid if Agent and Devices follow the exact same rules for their Attributs.
Which they don't.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| The Pilot from a Doberman isn't going to easily understand aerial maneuvering, because that's an uncommon task for a Doberman. |
The specific 'aerial' part is what the Autosoft does.
Since the Pilot is capable of the 'maneuvering' part, it does so.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| It's also an attribute. The Pilot attribute is the primary AI for drones, Agents, and IC, and stands in for a bundle of different things. |
And, unfortunatly, you are mixing those up.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| As you pointed out, you specifically cannot swap out the Pilot from an agent into a drone. |
You might want to read the reason again...
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Well, it therefore follows that you can't just swap one Pilot out for another across the board. |
That conclusion is wrong, as pointed out.
Pilot follows the same rules as System, and System can be swapped freely in Devices. Thus, Pilot can, too.
Even if that would not be implicit, SR4 specifically states when something is not generic, and, in case of Pilot... it does not.
Beside any half-baked try to project RL reasoning back into RPG, there is nothing stating otherwise.
Even then, without an overview of the abstraction layers, it isn't possible to make such statements.
| QUOTE |
| That conclusion is only valid if Agent and Devices follow the exact same rules for their Attributs. |
In the case of Pilots, they do share the same rules, which is what's causing this confusion. The Pilot attribute stands in for certain things-- that's really all it does.
| QUOTE |
| The specific 'aerial' part is what the Autosoft does. Since the Pilot is capable of the 'maneuvering' part, it does so. |
I've looked and looked, and I can only see one aerial drone with a Maneuver soft. I think it may be the *only* drone in the book that has a Maneuver soft. Since the rest of the drones don't have an aerial Maneuver soft, I can't see how it could help at all.
Reading through the vehicle rules, I see that most handling tests are Pilot + Maneuver; but since most drones don't have a Maneuver soft, it defaults to straight Pilot. That means that a Pilot handles all the maneuvering, andthe soft only provides special assistance. Based on that, it's safe to say that a ground-based Pilot isn't going to be in its element when downloaded into an aerial drone.
| QUOTE |
| Pilot follows the same rules as System, and System can be swapped freely in Devices. Thus, Pilot can, too. |
Except you can't swap out Pilot freely from Agent to Agent. And since Pilot is used in place of System for Agents as well, it follows that you cannot swap Pilots freely. In fact, you can't put System into drones or vehicles-- you have to use Pilot, which means the special no-swapping rules come into effect. "Has the same function as System" != "Follows the exact same rules as System", especially when there's several pages explaining the differences.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Reading through the vehicle rules, I see that most handling tests are Pilot + Maneuver; but since most drones don't have a Maneuver soft, it defaults to straight Pilot. That means that a Pilot handles all the maneuvering, andthe soft only provides special assistance. Based on that, it's safe to say that a ground-based Pilot isn't going to be in its element when downloaded into an aerial drone. |
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| However, vehicles don't take a -1 for defaulting to their pool whenever you're using the Pilot rating without an Autosoft contributing, so it would seem reasonable that rather than having no Maneuver (or whatever) Autosoft, vehicles come with what is essentially "Maneuver 0," the basic control systems for the vehicle, already coded in. This is what allows a fairly universal "Pilot" AI to be interfaced between any number of vehicles... little things like "this is your range of motion, this is your handling capability, this is how you move in various directions" are hard-coded into the drone itself (the "Maneuver 0" program), independent of the Pilot program. |
Or they might be hard-coded into the Pilot themselves. In either case, Rotbart is wrong-- it's the Pilot that does the driving, an autosoft just adds to it. Also, I see nothing suggesting that Pilots suffer from defaulting penalties in any case. You can't default to Pilot Aircraft, even if you have a skill of 0. For your point to work, all vehicles would need a Maneuver 1 or higher soft coded into them; since that isn't the case, there are different rules that apply. If there's anything with the skill, it'd be the Pilot program, which means it'd tend to be specific.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| In the case of Pilots, they do share the same rules, which is what's causing this confusion. The Pilot attribute stands in for certain things-- that's really all it does. |
They share the rules of use, yet differ in those about upgrade. This discussion is about the rules concerning the latter.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Since the rest of the drones don't have an aerial Maneuver soft, I can't see how it could help at all. |
Read the Autosoft description, then?
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Reading through the vehicle rules, I see that most handling tests are Pilot + Maneuver; but since most drones don't have a Maneuver soft, it defaults to straight Pilot. |
It's not even clear whether it defaults, as defaulting only covers skills.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| That means that a Pilot handles all the maneuvering, and the soft only provides special assistance. |
Which makes the Pilot generic, and the Autosoft specialized, as written in the rules.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Based on that, it's safe to say that a ground-based Pilot isn't going to be in its element when downloaded into an aerial drone. |
What is a 'groundbased Pilot'? Where do I find rules for that?
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| And since Pilot is used in place of System for Agents as well, it follows that you cannot swap Pilots freely. |
That's a reverse, as Agents don't follow the same rules concerning upgrades.
Based on it, System would be non-generic, too.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| In fact, you can't put System into drones or vehicles |
Of course you can.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| you have to use Pilot |
You don't.
It just would be pretty stupid.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| which means the special no-swapping rules come into effect. |
What page do I find that rule on?
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| "Has the same function as System" != "Follows the exact same rules as System", especially when there's several pages explaining the differences. |
Sorry, but Pilot is defined as another Form of OS... and OS is defined as System.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| In either case, Rotbart is wrong-- it's the Pilot that does the driving, an autosoft just adds to it. |
You are wrong about that, too.
| QUOTE |
| If there's anything with the skill, it'd be the Pilot program, which means it'd tend to be specific. |
Skill = Autosoft:
| QUOTE (SR4) |
| In essence, autosofts provide drones with specific skills so that they may make the appropriate skill tests. |
Only some Skills are given by Pilot, and those are used for Hacking.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Except you can't swap out Pilot freely from Agent to Agent. And since Pilot is used in place of System for Agents as well, it follows that you cannot swap Pilots freely. In fact, you can't put System into drones or vehicles-- you have to use Pilot, which means the special no-swapping rules come into effect. "Has the same function as System" != "Follows the exact same rules as System", especially when there's several pages explaining the differences. |
That is becuase Agents don't have Pilot Programs... Agents have Pilot Attributes equal to the rating of the Agent. Agents (and IC) essentially *are* a kind of Pilot-like program. Drones on the other hand are machines and must have Pilot Programs to have basic decision making abilities. The Pilot Program that Drones have give them thier Pilot Attributes. No where I could find in the book is it either blatantly specified like with Autosofts, nor even broadly hinted at that Pilot Programs were specific to a Drone or even type of Drone.
The Pilot Program is the drone's AI. It doesn't care what shape the drone has; if swapped into a new drone it will learn what the new drone is capable of and act accordingly.
| QUOTE (yesman) |
| It doesn't care what shape the drone has; if swapped into a new drone it will learn what the new drone is capable of and act accordingly. |
And, given enough micro-kernels build into the hardware of the drone, 'learning' may just mean a query.
| QUOTE |
| What is a 'groundbased Pilot'? Where do I find rules for that? |
pg 214 describes aerial pilots. The rest just follows.
| QUOTE |
| Of course you can. |
Actually, you can't, at least not in drones. The Pilot rating is what "sets drones apart from other vehicles" (pg 238). If it doesn't have a Pilot, it's not a drone.
| QUOTE |
| Sorry, but Pilot is defined as another Form of OS... and OS is defined as System. |
Sorry, but you can't put a System OS into a Doberman, and expect it to operate properly. You need a Pilot program... which means that Pilot follows different rules.
| QUOTE |
| No where I could find in the book is it either blatantly specified like with Autosofts, nor even broadly hinted at that Pilot Programs were specific to a Drone or even type of Drone. The Pilot Program is the drone's AI. It doesn't care what shape the drone has; if swapped into a new drone it will learn what the new drone is capable of and act accordingly. |
Sidebar on pg 214. Pilots in general will have trouble understanding orders outside their usual range of function. What the "usual range of funtion" means is up to individual GM's, but ordering a Doberman to perform aerial maneuvers definitely qualifies.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| pg 214 describes aerial pilots. |
No, it describes a Pilot installed on a surveillance rotodrone, and it's lack of programming in agressive maneuvers.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| The rest just follows. |
Where?
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Actually, you can't, at least not in drones. |
Even in drones.
Only Agents (and the like) come with automatic Pilot.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| The Pilot rating is what "sets drones apart from other vehicles" (pg 238). |
Except all other vehicles have Pilot, too.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| If it doesn't have a Pilot, it's not a drone. |
It's a device then.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Sorry, but you can't put a System OS into a Doberman, and expect it to operate properly. |
I certainly can, because that's what my computers OS does, and what object-oriented programming is about.
I just can't expect it to do anything by itself...
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| You need a Pilot program... which means that Pilot follows different rules. |
What rules?
| QUOTE (Cain) | ||
Sidebar on pg 214. Pilots in general will have trouble understanding orders outside their usual range of function. What the "usual range of funtion" means is up to individual GM's, but ordering a Doberman to perform aerial maneuvers definitely qualifies. |
Your example doesn't quite match the sidebar.
In the Aerial Doberman situation the Pilot Program would query the Doberman Drone Body, and say to itself:
"huh, it doesn't seem that I can perform aerial manuervers in a Doberman Drone Body.. I'd better ask for some clarification"
In the Rotor Drone bumping the Ganger off of the Bike example, the Rotor Drone's Pilot Programm through querying the Drone body would know it's own capabilities, but would have to guess at how to best use those capabilities to knock over the ganger.
This is not a limitation of the Pilot Program only knowing how to operate Doberman Drones, or for that matter Rotor Drones. Your example is a case of the Pilot not knowing what to do when requested to perform an act that it's Drone body cannot accomodate. The Rotor Drone example is the case of a Pilot being asked to perform duties that it's Drone body can complete, but is not self explanatory to a system that understands the capabilities of the Drone body (i.e. feedback systems and knowlege of the mechanics of the rotor drone would alloy you to fly it, but not tell you how to best use it to bowl over a ganger).
Also, let's look at the exact wording in that sidebar:
"The Pilot programs of 2070 are exceptionally
sophisticated. As a general rule, the
gamemaster can assume that these robotic
brains understand any commands that are issued
to them, as long as these commands are
within the device’s usual range of function (or
is covered by an autosoft’s specialty)"
So, according to this the Pilot program understands any range of actions that fall within the device's usual range of function. That means that the Pilot Program understands the functions of a device it's loaded into. That does not mean that the Pilot Program is bound to the device. Nor does it mean that a Pilot Program won't learn the usual range of function for a new device it's loaded into.
| QUOTE |
| Except all other vehicles have Pilot, too. |
All the ones in the book. That doesn't mean that a vehicle absolutely has to have one. In fact, the rules make it clear that you can have a vehicle without a Pilot, but you can't have a drone without one. The Pilot is "what sets drones apart".
| QUOTE |
| I certainly can, because that's what my computers OS does, and what object-oriented programming is about. I just can't expect it to do anything by itself... |
Oh, come on. I defy you to try and load a standard copy of WinXP onto an IMac. Or an IPod. Or my scientific calculator. They're all computers, after all.
| QUOTE |
| What rules? |
Pages 214 and 239.
| QUOTE |
| This is not a limitation of the Pilot Program only knowing how to operate Doberman Drones, or for that matter Rotor Drones. Your example is a case of the Pilot not knowing what to do when requested to perform an act that it's Drone body cannot accomodate. |
Actually, the examples in the book are well within the capacities of the drone in question. So the pilot can be confused by things even within it's body.
| QUOTE |
| So, according to this the Pilot program understands any range of actions that fall within the device's usual range of function. That means that the Pilot Program understands the functions of a device it's loaded into. That does not mean that the Pilot Program is bound to the device. Nor does it mean that a Pilot Program won't learn the usual range of function for a new device it's loaded into. |
Not quite. It says nothing about rather or not Pilots are specific to the vehicle in question. If the operational specs are hardcoded into the Pilot, then it won't transfer properly. A pilot might not automatically understand the device it's loaded into; it might require hard-code changes or an autosoft. (In fact, even if your drone includes an integral weapons mount, your Pilot doesn't know how to use it without an autosoft (p 239).)
So, in the interest of game balance and sanity, it's much safer to say that Pilots are not universally interchangeable. Otherwise, you could just buy one high-level Pilot, and instantly soup up dozens of drones. The rules also support this POV, at least well enough for it to pass as an interpretation.
Ooops.. Retraction time. I was missremembering Cain's example. I was thinking he was asking a Doberman Drone to do Rotor Drone things... not the case.
Copying (or Moving) a Pilot Program from a Doberman into a Rotor Drone should have no impact on what the Rotor Drone could do.
In any event it doesn't change the bulk of my prior post.
Copying (or Moving) a Pilot Program from a Doberman into a Rotor Drone should have no impact on what the Rotor Drone could do.
In any event it doesn't change the bulk of my prior post.
I'll saya couple things:
1) Anybody whose main points in their argument involve winky faces is probably just giving you a hard time.
2) I've helped develope autonomous targetting systems, mission computers, and avionics displays. Combined those three are about as close as you'll get to Pilot ratings for modern unmanned vehicles.
I can pretty much gaurantee you that no company would ever try to make something completely generic with that broad a landscape. You could spend 20 years writing that only to have your final product be outdated by the specialized systems now available, or you could spend 2 years at a time writing and upgrading more specialized systems. The former is a waste of money while the latter is a source of constant income.
1) Anybody whose main points in their argument involve winky faces is probably just giving you a hard time.
2) I've helped develope autonomous targetting systems, mission computers, and avionics displays. Combined those three are about as close as you'll get to Pilot ratings for modern unmanned vehicles.
I can pretty much gaurantee you that no company would ever try to make something completely generic with that broad a landscape. You could spend 20 years writing that only to have your final product be outdated by the specialized systems now available, or you could spend 2 years at a time writing and upgrading more specialized systems. The former is a waste of money while the latter is a source of constant income.
| QUOTE |
Actually, the examples in the book are well within the capacities of the drone in question. So the pilot can be confused by things even within it's body. |
Yes! That is correct. A Pilot may have problems being asked to do something that it's Drone body is capable of. Pilot's understand how the Drone operates and with that knowlege can pull off the basics pretty well. Pilot Programs do not know the best way to use the capabilities of the Drone body to pull off finese manuevers - that's where the Autosofts come in.
I don't really think this is where we disagree. I think we disagree on where the Pilot Program's knowlege of the Drone comes from:
To me it seems you are reading that the Pilot knows about the Drone because knowlege of the Drone is programmed into the Pilot, and that the Pilot only knows about the Drone type that it has been programmed for.
What I'm reading is that the Pilot is more of a generic Autonamous(sp?) thinking program, and learns what it needs to about the Drone by analyzing the Drone and making decisions based on that analysis. The Pilot is constantly thinking about how to complete it's orders with the Drone resources at it's disposal. The more obvious the solution, the better.
| QUOTE |
It says nothing about rather or not Pilots are specific to the vehicle in question. |
You're right, it doesn't...unlike Autosofts, or Targeting programs, in which case the rules explicitly state that the programs are device specific. It seems to a further stretch to think that they would only list some programs bought by specific device and not others, than to believe that Pilot's aren't bought by specific device.
| QUOTE |
If the operational specs are hardcoded into the Pilot, then it won't transfer properly. |
Ok, but there's nothing to suggest that the operational specs are hardcoded into the Pilot.
| QUOTE |
A pilot might not automatically understand the device it's loaded into; it might require hard-code changes or an autosoft. |
I don't see any reason to assume that this would be the case.
| QUOTE |
(In fact, even if your drone includes an integral weapons mount, your Pilot doesn't know how to use it without an autosoft (p 239).) |
Again, the fact that this is specificly mentioned makes me think they would have mentioned something about Pilot programs not being interchangeable if they'd meant them to be.
| QUOTE |
So, in the interest of game balance and sanity, it's much safer to say that Pilots are not universally interchangeable. |
That's actually complicating things for quite a bit. Now you have to track the the "type" of every Pilot Program you have. What about upgrades to the Drone body. Does the Pilot have to be re-programmed when you swap engines in a car or when you add devices?
Also, I think the balance issue, really isn't. If you're players want to get rich pirating software, this probably isn't the way to do it. This pales to what a good hacker can do with a little ingenuity and a delivery service.
Personally I think that having to upgrade the pilot for each drone would make some things a bit prohibitive. I can't imagine wanting to spend 12,500 a pop for a fleet of MCT Flyspys and Lonestar iBalls with rating 4 pilots.
I don't think anyone is saying you have to pay for each drone, just each drone body type. So you pay once for all of your Dobermans, you pay once for all of your wheeled drones, or you pay once for all of your drones, depending what depth you want to go to. I prefer the first, but none of them are spelled out anywhere in the rules, so all are equally valid from a rules standpoint (if not a logcial one).
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| I don't think anyone is saying you have to pay for each drone, just each drone body type. So you pay once for all of your Dobermans, you pay once for all of your wheeled drones, or you pay once for all of your drones, depending what depth you want to go to. I prefer the first, but none of them are spelled out anywhere in the rules, so all are equally valid from a rules standpoint (if not a logcial one). |
That's basically what I'm thinking is fairest. The Doberman pilot can be freely swapped between all tracked drones freely, or between all ground drones if you like. This way, you don't run across rampant abuse by cracking the copy protection, and you can't just soup up all your drones with one program.
Egads! We agree!!!
Cue dramatic music!
Cue dramatic music!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.