Full Version: Copying drone pilot/autosoft
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| 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. |
No, they don't. They just say that it makes drones special (in some undefined way)... so if you take it away, they just aren't special anymore.
Basically, that perfectly matches the decision making capability description of Pilot.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| 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. |
And they all run Linux, if compiled for that processing interface.
SR4 has only one generic processing interface, called Response.
So any software runs on any device.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Pages 214 and 239. |
Not even close.
Both only state that Pilots lack destructive programming, and even leave it open that they may lack constructive, too.
| QUOTE |
| No, they don't. They just say that it makes drones special (in some undefined way)... so if you take it away, they just aren't special anymore. |
Ahem... page 238:
| QUOTE |
| The key difference that sets apart drones from ordinary vehicles is the rigger adaptation that provides drones with a Pilot program, which enables the drone to act independantly of its controller to a limited degree. |
It doesn't just make them special... it *defines* the difference between a vehicle/device and a drone.
| QUOTE |
| And they all run Linux, if compiled for that processing interface. SR4 has only one generic processing interface, called Response. |
Actually, Response isn't a processing interface. It's a benchmark of processing power. Otaku have a Response rating, as do sprites; but you can't load a System program onto either. Look at page 212:
| QUOTE |
| Response is the device's processing power, or how quickly it reacts to input and processes commands and information. |
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| It doesn't just make them special... it *defines* the difference between a vehicle/device and a drone. |
And every vehicle up until now has Pilot, too... so, where is that big difference?
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Actually, Response isn't a processing interface. |
It is, too for devices.
Otherwise, you would be bying any software only for that type of device specifically.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Otaku have a Response rating, as do sprites; but you can't load a System program onto either. |
Just those aren't devices - and the only reason you can't load Software on Technomancers is that they have no storage memory...
| QUOTE | ||
And every vehicle up until now has Pilot, too... so, where is that big difference? |
Because you can also turn other things into drones that aren't on the list. Matchbook sized cars are an example given in the book. Autonomous gun systems and cameras can do so as well. Without a Pilot program, that gun mount is just going to sit there.
| QUOTE | ||
It is, too for devices. Otherwise, you would be bying any software only for that type of device specifically. |
That's rather the point of this thread, to decide that. As it stands, drones require unique programs to do the same thing agents do-- an agent with Sniffer can make the Intercept Wireless signal action, a drone can't do that without an EW autosoft. Drone programs are clearly not interchangeable with normal ones, and Pilot is not identical with System-- they just represent the same core attributes.
Besides which, Response is not a processing interface. "Response is the device's processing power, or how quickly it reacts to input and processes commands and information." Nothing to do with how it accepts new commands-- that falls under the province of System.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Because you can also turn other things into drones that aren't on the list. |
That does not answer my question - where is the strong difference between vehicles and drones until now?
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Without a Pilot program, that gun mount is just going to sit there. |
Sure, but nothing stops you controlling it in AR/VR if System is installed.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| That's rather the point of this thread, to decide that. |
Unfortunatly, there is no 'decision' about that in the unified device system of SR4... it is the very basic of it: standardisation.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| As it stands, drones require unique programs to do the same thing agents do-- an agent with Sniffer can make the Intercept Wireless signal action, a drone can't do that without an EW autosoft. |
Pilot does not provide EW at all, so the Agent in fact can only let the program run itself.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Drone programs are clearly not interchangeable with normal ones, |
Given the rules, that is wrong.
But, show us where it is 'clear' in you opinion.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| and Pilot is not identical with System-- they just represent the same core attributes. |
Of course there is a difference between Pilot and System - the ability to make decisions.
Otherwise, they are the same, as stated in the rules.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Besides which, Response is not a processing interface. |
Even your quote defines Response as the basic hardware capabilities, which is where the processing interface layer lies.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Nothing to do with how it accepts new commands-- that falls under the province of System. |
System is defined as the OS, which is the layer on top of that.
| QUOTE |
| That does not answer my question - where is the strong difference between vehicles and drones until now? |
The Pilot program.
| QUOTE |
| Pilot does not provide EW at all, so the Agent in fact can only let the program run itself. |
Incorrect. An agent with Sniffer rolls Pilot + Sniffer for this test, since the Pilot rating stands in for the Computer skill. Which is yet another thing System does not do.
| QUOTE |
| Given the rules, that is wrong. But, show us where it is 'clear' in you opinion. |
Autosofts, page 239.
| QUOTE |
| Of course there is a difference between Pilot and System - the ability to make decisions. Otherwise, they are the same, as stated in the rules. |
Pilot also stands in for skills, allows the use of opposed tests, is vulnerable to cybercombat (but invulnerable to the Crash OS operation), allows the use of other programs, and so on. Nope, sorry, not even close. They fill similar roles, but so do sprites and spirits. Even though those rules are damn near identical, they're nowhere near the same thing at all.
| QUOTE |
| Even your quote defines Response as the basic hardware capabilities, which is where the processing interface layer lies. System is defined as the OS, which is the layer on top of that. |
Now you're describing the BIOS. That's not exactly hardware, either. There's actually several "layers" between the chips and the primary OS: BIOS, machine language, compilers, and so on.
i'm just curious, to those who feel pilot shouldn't be so readily copiable because you feel it's unbalanced...
do you do anything at all to stop the hacker in the group from copying a rating 6 agent and a bunch of rating 6 hacking programs for the agents they make?
anything at all? because the hacker only has to pay for respponse 6 once for every 6 agents, whereas the rigger is already paying for:
each vehicle
any modifications (rigger adaptation, weapon mount, and anything else, mainly houserules right now i suppose)
response 6 on EVERY vehicle.
signal upgrade on EVERY vehicle (if desired).
Ammo for the weapons mounted on the vehicle (if applicable).
sensor packages for EVERY vehicle.
so, tell me... is it so horribly bad that they can copy the pilot program, considering what a hacker can do with an agent?
now, certainly, if you just feel it doesn't make sense that a doberman pilot could be used in, say, a minisub, then i got nothing to argue there. that's up to you, in your game. though, oddly enough, no one seems to have any problems with autosofts being totally transferrable (honestly, you have a problem with the same pilot running different vehicles or different classes of vehicles, but the same maneuver autosoft for a rotodrone and a blimp doesn't faze you at all?).
do you do anything at all to stop the hacker in the group from copying a rating 6 agent and a bunch of rating 6 hacking programs for the agents they make?
anything at all? because the hacker only has to pay for respponse 6 once for every 6 agents, whereas the rigger is already paying for:
each vehicle
any modifications (rigger adaptation, weapon mount, and anything else, mainly houserules right now i suppose)
response 6 on EVERY vehicle.
signal upgrade on EVERY vehicle (if desired).
Ammo for the weapons mounted on the vehicle (if applicable).
sensor packages for EVERY vehicle.
so, tell me... is it so horribly bad that they can copy the pilot program, considering what a hacker can do with an agent?
now, certainly, if you just feel it doesn't make sense that a doberman pilot could be used in, say, a minisub, then i got nothing to argue there. that's up to you, in your game. though, oddly enough, no one seems to have any problems with autosofts being totally transferrable (honestly, you have a problem with the same pilot running different vehicles or different classes of vehicles, but the same maneuver autosoft for a rotodrone and a blimp doesn't faze you at all?).
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| The Pilot program. |
They both have Pilot, so no difference there.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| An agent with Sniffer rolls Pilot + Sniffer for this test, since the Pilot rating stands in for the Computer skill. |
So does a Drone.
Just the Agent does not have Electronic Warfare...
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Which is yet another thing System does not do. |
In fact, it does - check the Programs section.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Autosofts, page 239. |
Sorry, still not even close.
There isn't a single rule stating what you claim.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Pilot also stands in for skills, allows the use of opposed tests |
So may System.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| is vulnerable to cybercombat (but invulnerable to the Crash OS operation) |
It's Persona is vulvernable to CB, indeed - but it can be crashed like System.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| allows the use of other programs |
What programs
Autosofts?
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| and so on. |
Please elaborate.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| They fill similar roles, but so do sprites and spirits. |
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Even though those rules are damn near identical, they're nowhere near the same thing at all. |
Certainly, as Pilot can make decisions, wheras System does not... just, Pilot is defined as the decision-making form of System.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Now you're describing the BIOS. |
I certainly don't care what you call the boot loader - the BIOS isn't a real layer anymore.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| There's actually several "layers" between the chips and the primary OS: BIOS, machine language, compilers, and so on. |
Urg. No. An OS, unless virtulized over many machines, is run in machine code.
| QUOTE | ||
So may System. |
Where? Where does it say that System can stand in for a Computer, Hacking, Data search, or Cybercombat skill? Heck, how can a *node* engage in cybercombat? All it can do is activate IC.
| QUOTE |
| In fact, it does - check the Programs section. |
I did. There's nothing on this topic there at all. except for a few page references. To Intercept traffic, you need to make a Hacking + Sniffer test. Unfortunately, a System program doesn't stand in for a hacking skill, so you can't actually do anything.
You know, I'm getting a mite sick of providing all the page references. Please show me where it says that System can stand in for Computer, Hacking, Data Search, or Cybercombat skill.
| QUOTE |
| It's Persona is vulvernable to CB, indeed - but it can be crashed like System. |
Really? Check out page 223, right side, third paragraph under the sidebar:
"Personas, IC, agents, and sprites may not be crashed-- they must be defeated in cybercombat."
You can crash a System program. You cannot crash an agent with a Pilot program, you have to defeat it in matrix combat. That makes it pretty clear that they're not interchangeable.
| QUOTE |
| i'm just curious, to those who feel pilot shouldn't be so readily copiable because you feel it's unbalanced... do you do anything at all to stop the hacker in the group from copying a rating 6 agent and a bunch of rating 6 hacking programs for the agents they make? |
I'm looking for options, yes. The army of Mr. Smiths tactic that's been floating around here would definitely benefit from some restrictions. However, I'm currently not able to see any fair and believeable method for doing so. The best idea I've come up with so far is to say you need to crack the copy protection every time you want to upload it to a new device, but that might get unnecessarily complicated as well.
Crashing OS/System.
The reason why you have to defeat an Agent/IC in cybercombat is because they are programs loaded into the System OS of a node/commlink. Since they are programs that can defend themselves then they cannot be crashed.
Pilot programs for drones are an OS and can therefore be crashed, their shell/drone/body can defend themselves from external attacks but not from hacking attacks. You can also upload an agent/IC to be active on a Pilot OS inside a drone to provide defense against hacking attacks.
The reason why you have to defeat an Agent/IC in cybercombat is because they are programs loaded into the System OS of a node/commlink. Since they are programs that can defend themselves then they cannot be crashed.
Pilot programs for drones are an OS and can therefore be crashed, their shell/drone/body can defend themselves from external attacks but not from hacking attacks. You can also upload an agent/IC to be active on a Pilot OS inside a drone to provide defense against hacking attacks.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Please show me where it says that System can stand in for Computer, Hacking, Data Search, or Cybercombat skill. |
p. 228.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| You can crash a System program. |
And as Pilot is a decision making System, you can Crash it - if you are in that node.
That's the fine point - you may crash a running Program 'externally', but you may not crash an Agent 'externally' (only defeat it in CC)... until you hack into it, and crash it's core.
Which is a pretty stupid tactic, but possible anyway.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| That makes it pretty clear that they're not interchangeable. |
Nope, that would be a reverse.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| That's the fine point - you may crash a running Program 'externally', but you may not crash an Agent 'externally' (only defeat it in CC)... until you hack into it, and crash it's core. Which is a pretty stupid tactic, but possible anyway. |
Not really, it’s usefulness would be limited but it is a good way to crash a particular node. Say that you have 2 nodes. Node 1 is ordered to launch IC into Node 2 in case of a breach. Node 2 has a few agents in node 2 that reports back suspected activity. You hack into node 1, crash the OS and prevent further launches of agents and IC, then you clear up Node 2 from lingering agents.
That, too - but I was talking about hacking the IC itself... while it rips your Persona apart.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| That, too - but I was talking about hacking the IC itself... while it rips your Persona apart. |
Well…that would be an interesting challenge…But I do doubt that you can hack a program. Unless it is an agent/IC that is uploaded in another Node but controlled by someones comlink. That would mean it should have a subscription list so that it knows who is allowed to give it commands. If you can hack the agent then you should be able to edit its subscription list.
This complicates things. Does agents/pilots/IC have a persona? Since a subscription is located within a persona (mostly the characters) then it should also be present in agents/Pilot/IC…
Hmm, nah, my guess is this.
Persona Subscription list: What devices have restricted access to each other according to the character.
Device subscription list: What persona is the device subscribed to and what other devices can it communicate with
Agent subscription list: What node can give it orders and what node can it communicate with
Pilot subscription list: What persona can give it orders and what device can it access.
That’s how I would rules subscription lists since it must be written at both Owner and Receiver.
Whoa there, why would it be "unbalancing" to be able to freely copy Pilot and the Autosofts?
I mean, you can copy an Agent and all the other software and load multiple instances of the same.
Why should the Hacker be given, what in all ways amount to a drone in the Matrix, for a one time expenditure of Agent 6?
Or rather, why do you want to punish the Rigger and say that his Pilot 6 is "special" and cannot be copied? - Remember the drones Hardware is wired to level 3 as default, it has to be upgraded like a commlink to use the better software.
Is it somehow less overpowering when the Agents run amok in the Matrix, compared to high Pilot drones in the real world? - Personally I think not.
Especially since the drones costs a fortune to keep running, repair, transport etc. - And with their crappy default armor they will die all the time, making it obscenely expensive if the software, in the least, couldn't be ported to new drones.
So you have the Hacker with Free Agents in any amount he has the hardware to run, or can leech power from nodes to run his Agents on.
You have the Mage/Shaman able to call a spirit for Free. With weapon immunity and all, including special powers. - And he can pay less than a tooled out drone costs to have more spirits on retainer.
And then the poor Rigger. He has to pay for new software, new hardware, repairs, transport and his stuff can be shot and not replaced on the fly.
The three areas are the same. Why do you insist on making it harder for the Rigger when you don't think twice about the Mage and Hacker doing the same things better.
Fortunately nothing discussed here ever makes it into the FAQ/Errata/Future versions. - Agh. It does.
I mean, you can copy an Agent and all the other software and load multiple instances of the same.
Why should the Hacker be given, what in all ways amount to a drone in the Matrix, for a one time expenditure of Agent 6?
Or rather, why do you want to punish the Rigger and say that his Pilot 6 is "special" and cannot be copied? - Remember the drones Hardware is wired to level 3 as default, it has to be upgraded like a commlink to use the better software.
Is it somehow less overpowering when the Agents run amok in the Matrix, compared to high Pilot drones in the real world? - Personally I think not.
Especially since the drones costs a fortune to keep running, repair, transport etc. - And with their crappy default armor they will die all the time, making it obscenely expensive if the software, in the least, couldn't be ported to new drones.
So you have the Hacker with Free Agents in any amount he has the hardware to run, or can leech power from nodes to run his Agents on.
You have the Mage/Shaman able to call a spirit for Free. With weapon immunity and all, including special powers. - And he can pay less than a tooled out drone costs to have more spirits on retainer.
And then the poor Rigger. He has to pay for new software, new hardware, repairs, transport and his stuff can be shot and not replaced on the fly.
The three areas are the same. Why do you insist on making it harder for the Rigger when you don't think twice about the Mage and Hacker doing the same things better.
Fortunately nothing discussed here ever makes it into the FAQ/Errata/Future versions. - Agh. It does.
| QUOTE (weblife) |
| Whoa there, why would it be "unbalancing" to be able to freely copy Pilot and the Autosofts? |
..because that would be the RAW of SR4, and as SR4 is bad...
| QUOTE (weblife) |
| Remember the drones Hardware is wired to level 3 as default, it has to be upgraded like a commlink to use the better software. |
Well, they come with Pilot 3, but I haven't found anything that says something about hardwireing.
The rulebook states that you can't run a System with a rating above your Response.
System = Agent = Pilot
So, to cut costs, I really believe the drones come with Response 3 and not Response 6.
Meaning the Rigger has to upgrade Response, like for a commlink, on each drone in order to use a better Pilot.
Yes. I cry too.
System = Agent = Pilot
So, to cut costs, I really believe the drones come with Response 3 and not Response 6.
Meaning the Rigger has to upgrade Response, like for a commlink, on each drone in order to use a better Pilot.
Yes. I cry too.
Pg. 214 of SR4, in the chart Average ratings, 3 includes drones. Later in the book all published drones have a pilot of 3.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| Well, they come with Pilot 3, but I haven't found anything that says something about hardwireing. |
I think he means the Generic Device table which states that most vehicles have a Response of 3. in order to use a Pilot 4 program then you would need to raise response on each drone/vehicle to 4 and that costs 2K per vessel. Gets kinda expensive when you go for lots of smart drones.
Oh, yeah - what would a Rigger be without expensive toys?
| QUOTE | ||
p. 228. |
Really? Let's take a look, shall we?
- First pagragraph: No mention of System.
- Payload: nothing about System here either.
- IC: No direct mention of System, but it does say that the node *launches* IC, which in turn has a Pilot program (and thus, has the skills). So, nothing says the OS can act as a skill; it needs to launch other programs to do so.
- Source code and Piracy: No mention of system.
- Virtual Reality: Still no mention of system.
- VR Access mode: Nope, not here either.
*Nowhere* on that page does it say that System can stand in for the computer skills. In fact, it expressly states that IC uses a pilot rating instead of those skills. So, once again we see that Pilot != System.
| QUOTE |
| Whoa there, why would it be "unbalancing" to be able to freely copy Pilot and the Autosofts? I mean, you can copy an Agent and all the other software and load multiple instances of the same. Why should the Hacker be given, what in all ways amount to a drone in the Matrix, for a one time expenditure of Agent 6? |
I have the exact same problem there, except I can't find a believeable way of dealing with it. If we assume pilots are hardcoded with general vehicle specs, then you can't simply run an uber-army of drones. I haven't found anything that can realistically stop a player from launching an army of Mr. Smiths, try thought I might.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Really? |
No, not really - Adobe Acrobat for PPC does not use the A & B notation for the cover and back, so I fell -2 pages short.
| QUOTE (SR4 @ p. 226, Programs) |
| The skill used with the program to make tests is listed in parentheses aft er the program’s name below. Note that if a node, agent, IC program, or sprite is running the program, substitute System (rating) for skill. |
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| If we assume pilots are hardcoded with general vehicle specs, then you can't simply run an uber-army of drones. |
There is no such problem, as it would require to upgrade the Response attribute of every single drone...
Pilot != System They are similar and linked, but if they were the same then they'd use the same rules.
Also, you do both realize that nobody has ever "won" a debate that broke down to one line quotes followed by retorts, right?
Also, you do both realize that nobody has ever "won" a debate that broke down to one line quotes followed by retorts, right?
| QUOTE |
| I haven't found anything that can realistically stop a player from launching an army of Mr. Smiths, try thought I might. |
I have.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Pilot != System They are similar and linked |
True, it's Pilot > System.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.