I was just looking at cetiah's post of his hacking rules as a way of speeding up hacking and I thought I would say something about speeding up hacking.
I understand that the official position of Fanpro is that hacking occurs by proxy of personas because the matrix just moves that fast. I don't disagree with the thought that computers will move faster and faster but I don't like the consequences of the way they thought this out.
Okay if they are saying that the persona is the one actually doing things because we are too slow then why not do that all the way? Make hacking a function of agents and not people. Then you can throw away all the matrix rules and have an agent roll. The rest occurs behind the scenes.
> Well that wouldn't be fun and it would take away a character type. People who are interested in computers like to be able to deal with the matrix.
But the matrix system doesn't reflect actual computers. If you know much about computers then you know that most of this doesn't make any sense.
>But it could make sense in the future!
SO your making a detailed computer system to please the people who are interested in computers by making one that doesn't make sense to people who know computers? ( See Lewis Black for an expression about this logic, the one with the confounded jowl shaking)
I think that computers will be fast and are fast now but they still depend on people. They will be limited to what their computer is telling them. No one can stare at something at the rate these people are talking about. Making a perception test several times a second against all the traffic in a system for a normal 8 hour shift? Think about that for a second. You will end up will a drooling mess that can see anything anymore. It won't work. You are effectively increasing the time that they perceive by a factor of their initiative increase. So they are staring at something for effectively 24 hours! Even staring at the same area for more then a few minutes normal time will wear out a person. How is it going to feel with high resolution hyperactivity of the brain from all the input?
So we go back to programs making the perception tests. The spyder only pays attention when the programs tell him something. That way the poor spyder doesn't fall unconscious with a few minutes of his shift starting.
Now programs can make constant perception tests. Okay so for one why would the roll vary? They are artificial so they would notice the same amount of information all the time. So take it's average successes as a threshold.
So we have eliminated the problem of multiple perception tests by the system. If you are going to do something that they might think is strange then you just have to beat a perception threshold with your stealth.
We have sped things up alot so far! Now you don't have to worry about making perception tests for every second.
More in a bit.
Full Version: Speeding Up Hacking
| QUOTE |
| SO your making a detailed computer system to please the people who are interested in computers by making one that doesn't make sense to people who know computers? |
Actually, I think it's because many of the Matrix assumptions were made to work with the "Virtual Reality" model. This has a whole genre associated with it that Shadowrun was trying to embrace. A genre in which digital cybercombat and sculpted systems are the norm.
I don't think any of those assumptions work on an AR-based Matrix, though. At least not well.
So at this point we can reflect several actions in a system by one threshold. I think we are making progress! So let's see if we can continue this trend.
We can easily say that the programs are doing several actions at one time and this is reflected by one rating.
So now we have the idea that one program can do several things that can be reflected by one rating.
So we take these two ideas and put them together and say that one program interacting with another program can constitue multiple descrete actions to possibly counter each other. Therefore we could reduce the complexity of what is going on by saying that one program can negate another program through a series of actions that we as people could follow if we tried. Therefore we can further say that the interactions of the software is were the speed of the matrix occurs and we do not need a proxy. The give and take of the individual programs takes up that task.
Therfore we can go back to the idea that a person CAN interact and do things on the matrix if they have the right software and we DON'T need a proxy to do those actions for us. We just need to have a copy already loaded to do something.
So the matrix opens back up for actual people. These people can do actions that will either work immediately or fail immediately. We don't have to try and move as fast as a computer. We just need to think ahead.
So what does this mean?
We can slow down hackers and speed up hacking!
Hackers don't need as many IPs. They can do their actions as fewer rolls if some of the rolls are built in as threshold modifiers to a smaller number of rolls. This means spending a little more time with each roll but far fewer rolls. You roll to gain access to the signal, then you roll to do whatever action you need to do. You don't need to roll for the system hardly ever. No perception rolls, no firewall rolls, no agents wandering around rolls, and no exhausted spyder's rolls. You either do the action or you don't do the action. That is all the GM needs to figure out.
If you reduce the number of rolls needed then you can reduce the IPs for the hacker. This way they don't slow the game down for the rest of the players. Ideally you can have them act with a normal number of actions on their turn and that will be it! The hacker's action no longer becomes the best time to run to the grocery store.
We can easily say that the programs are doing several actions at one time and this is reflected by one rating.
So now we have the idea that one program can do several things that can be reflected by one rating.
So we take these two ideas and put them together and say that one program interacting with another program can constitue multiple descrete actions to possibly counter each other. Therefore we could reduce the complexity of what is going on by saying that one program can negate another program through a series of actions that we as people could follow if we tried. Therefore we can further say that the interactions of the software is were the speed of the matrix occurs and we do not need a proxy. The give and take of the individual programs takes up that task.
Therfore we can go back to the idea that a person CAN interact and do things on the matrix if they have the right software and we DON'T need a proxy to do those actions for us. We just need to have a copy already loaded to do something.
So the matrix opens back up for actual people. These people can do actions that will either work immediately or fail immediately. We don't have to try and move as fast as a computer. We just need to think ahead.
So what does this mean?
We can slow down hackers and speed up hacking!
Hackers don't need as many IPs. They can do their actions as fewer rolls if some of the rolls are built in as threshold modifiers to a smaller number of rolls. This means spending a little more time with each roll but far fewer rolls. You roll to gain access to the signal, then you roll to do whatever action you need to do. You don't need to roll for the system hardly ever. No perception rolls, no firewall rolls, no agents wandering around rolls, and no exhausted spyder's rolls. You either do the action or you don't do the action. That is all the GM needs to figure out.
If you reduce the number of rolls needed then you can reduce the IPs for the hacker. This way they don't slow the game down for the rest of the players. Ideally you can have them act with a normal number of actions on their turn and that will be it! The hacker's action no longer becomes the best time to run to the grocery store.
| QUOTE (cetiah) |
Actually, I think it's because many of the Matrix assumptions were made to work with the "Virtual Reality" model. This has a whole genre associated with it that Shadowrun was trying to embrace. A genre in which digital cybercombat and sculpted systems are the norm. |
The problem is that the game system is operating from the point of view that the illusion of VR is real and it isn't. This is one of my biggest problems with Shadowrun. The VR model is just a model (like Camalot). It is what is being displayed. It is not actually what is happening.
People keep on missing that the VR is shown for a reason. You have to think about why something would be shown. The processes are transparent to the user most of the time.
Even if we don't address the issue of the reality of the VR, we need to address the complexity and slowness of dealing with hacking rules. You can describe the actions of the hackers any way you want, but keep the rolls quick and speed up the game.
You can describe the system as having a security guard there but have it just sit there until the alarms say do something instead of beliving that a VR image can actually see you. The problem is that the mechanism of the system realizing you are doing something wrong is being confused for the representation of having secuirty in an IMAGE of a security guard. That guard may be accessed as a help function but IT doesn't actually see. It looks like a human but don't confuse it for a human.
Look at it the other way around. If you have a system that can spend the resources to run a bunch of agents (if you want to see the guard as an agent so it can act independantly) then why not just record and process all the actions of everyone in the system all the time through the VR walls?
See what I mean? The system doesn't need the agents in the first place. It is not a person that can only think about one thing at a time. It can think about everything in it's system because it is the system. We think in human terms and think that the walls are walls and so it needs a guard to see you. That is a mistake that most users would make but not sysops.
Therefore the VR imagery is not the determining factor. It is just a display system. The archetecture and the display are not the same thing.
Update: 1
First of all, let's be clear about this. I agree with you. The basic assumptions underlying the Matrix are dumb, especially if you can no longer put them in a "virtual reality" context. But I also understand why they are there and how they relate to genre. I'm a little fuzzy on the source material, but I'll try to explain how I see this:
First of all, let's be clear about this. I agree with you. The basic assumptions underlying the Matrix are dumb, especially if you can no longer put them in a "virtual reality" context. But I also understand why they are there and how they relate to genre. I'm a little fuzzy on the source material, but I'll try to explain how I see this:
| QUOTE |
| You can describe the system as having a security guard there but have it just sit there until the alarms say do something instead of beliving that a VR image can actually see you. The problem is that the mechanism of the system realizing you are doing something wrong is being confused for the representation of having secuirty in an IMAGE of a security guard. That guard may be accessed as a help function but IT doesn't actually see. It looks like a human but don't confuse it for a human. Look at it the other way around. If you have a system that can spend the resources to run a bunch of agents (if you want to see the guard as an agent so it can act independantly) then why not just record and process all the actions of everyone in the system all the time through the VR walls? |
Sample objection #1) The guard should not have to "see".
Sample objection #2) Why isn't all activity recorded and processed?
It's been a long time since I've read cyberpunk, but as far as I know, both these questions can be answered by "the Matrix doesn't work that way." No, seriously. Here me out.
Let's say a SysOp wants his node on the Matrix (or wants to make a Matrix-compatible node). Ideally, he would want to monitor everyone at once and so he writes this "guard program", but the moment he does, the Matrix takes this code and assumes it into its virtual reality model. Why? Because that's what it was made to do. Everytime the program is doing something, there's some kind of virtual reality equivilent, even if the connection is bizzare.
For example, in the movie the Matrix, whether or not an Agent is connected to the information that the other Agents have is represented by a small earpiece. Once an Agent removes that earpiece, then it doesn't know what's happening to other Agents. However, this doesn't mean that you could just "attack" the earpiece, unless that too has some kind of computer-code equivilent. The earpiece would simply be "reset" by the Matrix OS to make the icons conform to the activity being represented.
Some of my friends and I were watching the Matrix, wondering why Agent Smith stopped to straighten his tie. If everything has some kind of equivilent, what does this do? We came to the conclusion that damage to sunglasses represents critical damage to the Agent, and the "straightening of his tie" was him taking an action to reload his icon, "healing" some of his damage.
In the book, Snow Crash, Hiro Protagonist is an ace hacker who can cheat the Matrix rules because he helped design it. He can interact with icons in a way the system wouldn't normally allow, and even destroy them. This is represented by a sword. What's odd is that hero is described as being one of the best swordsmen alive and we have no doubt about his skill. The line between his swordsmanship and his hacking skills are kind of blurred, but that's sort of the intent.
Presumably, if Hiro gets punched in the face and falls on the floor, then all of this has some kind of data equvilent. If not, the Matrix would reset in such a way that Hiro is standing up. I think that's how it was supposed to work. Because of Hiro's hacker skills and special backdoor status, he can sort of cheat those rules and his icon doesn't always represent his system's activities.
Now, Neil's metaverse was a vastly inferior product to Shadowrun's Matrix, but I think you could see the point I'm trying to make. Both the security programmer and the hacker may want to achieve certain things "invisibly" in the Matrix, but the rules of the Matrix are such that it will modify your icon appropriately and, in so doing, communicate with other icons. Thus, if your guard is looking in one direction, then yes, you can literally sneak by him. Depending on your interpretation, this might involve actual sneakiness skills, but only a hacker would know the system so well that he could blend his physical icon with the changes the Matrix will adjust for.
I'm not saying any of this *should* work this way. But I think these decisions were embraced (consciously or not) to include Shadowrun in the cyberpunk VR genre that was (and is) prevalent.
So why can't you record everything always at once? Well, I assume the Matrix is supposed to do this, actually, but no one is really allowed to have that information. It is assumed that the basic Stealth program was designed to get around such things (though in my custom rules I require an installed Stealth Chip to accomplish this override). Now, in a Sculpted System, where the SysOp was given more leeway to modify the rules of the matrix, then it could work how you're describing. An all-seeing eye could be in the sky watching everything, or walls might just suddenly spring up when you think about going into a restricted entryway.
Why does the guard's icon actually represent his perception capability? Because the guard's icon wasn't just meant as a user convinience. Maybe the Matrix started that way, maybe not, but it doesn't work that way now. In fact most stuff probably has to be programmed from inside the Matrix using other Matrix icons. I doubt anyone can directly code into the Matrix anymore. Everything in the Matrix is a Virtual Reality, or rather a Simulated Reality, and everything must follow the basic rules of the Reality that is being simulated, whether its convinient or not. Programmers are people who find ways to solve problems while working within these rules. Hackers are people who've found ways to solve problems while 'bending' some of those rules.
Further, to use the Matrix movie example again, remember that the rules of the world functioned slightly differently for Hackers than they did for "legitimate users" based on this concept of being "plugged in" verses jacking in. In the movie, the agents earpiece gave them instant awareness of the activities of every "legitimate user" in the Matrix, and allowed them to see through their senses or possibly even to register their thoughts or emotions. But they couldn't do this to the Hackers. Thus, there's nothing saying that this recording activity you are describing isn't done, but we need to assume that (or explain why) hackers aren't affected by this.
None of this applies to a "new" Matrix built around A.R. though.
Well as I elaboreted in some other threads, the matrix can be modeled to be exactly what you want it to be. There is always some fluff handwaving argument to justify everything. Its virtual reality. For example I could counter Garrowolfs argument about staring at traffic in that way:
You dont stare at the traffic, you know it. Using the sniffer (or whatever) utility it is directly transfered into your brain like a knowsoft and you just know what traffic is there, depending on the rating of the utility, so you are able to process it.
Again, you can justify everything if you want in VR. So the modelling is completely up to you. I can also justify whay the system/node doesnt know everything that is happening in it. It has no routines to do so. Thats what agents are for. Agents carry the intelligence. Of course you can again say: "Agents should know everything the node knows if authorised to do so". But again, things can be faked. And thats exactly what a hacker is doing. Disguising as something else.
To say it the third time: If you are creative you can justify everything. Just be consistent. So the actual game reality of the matrix has nothing to do with its mechanics.
Thats why the simpelest Matrix rules are those, that have a dice roll related to every desicion you make. Of cours you can ask why even roll, but then you are questioning the paradigm that in RPGs you roll to do something if this something is important and could fail and will ahve some consequences if it failed (if something has no consequnces, it should never be rolled for).
So in the matrix you roll dice if you want to do something that should, for any reasons, have a good (say at least 5%) to fail.
But you have 2 cases. One, wehere you are ding this action with access rights, and two, where you are doing this without. The second test has to be more difficult or we would be facing the paradoxon of some people with high hacking and low computer skill doing things better illegaly than legaly.
So we need two kinds of tests. One closed test, and one that is harder. Again tehre are two choices for this: Either make it an open test, where the ndoe rolls against you, or just subtract a number related to the node directly from the result.
Finally you only have to consider the actions which should be rolled fore. The more actions you consider "roll-worty" the more complex your system become, the more possibilities you get and the slower it will be.
Thats just about it on what to consider when making up matrix rules:
- you can justify everything, so you can focus on game mechanics
- to make game mechanics as simple as possible connect only desicions - and consequnces - to rolls
- make it consistent in itself
- make it balanced so that it is consistent with your game world
The rest is just a matter of personal taste: What is considered worthy rolling for.
You dont stare at the traffic, you know it. Using the sniffer (or whatever) utility it is directly transfered into your brain like a knowsoft and you just know what traffic is there, depending on the rating of the utility, so you are able to process it.
Again, you can justify everything if you want in VR. So the modelling is completely up to you. I can also justify whay the system/node doesnt know everything that is happening in it. It has no routines to do so. Thats what agents are for. Agents carry the intelligence. Of course you can again say: "Agents should know everything the node knows if authorised to do so". But again, things can be faked. And thats exactly what a hacker is doing. Disguising as something else.
To say it the third time: If you are creative you can justify everything. Just be consistent. So the actual game reality of the matrix has nothing to do with its mechanics.
Thats why the simpelest Matrix rules are those, that have a dice roll related to every desicion you make. Of cours you can ask why even roll, but then you are questioning the paradigm that in RPGs you roll to do something if this something is important and could fail and will ahve some consequences if it failed (if something has no consequnces, it should never be rolled for).
So in the matrix you roll dice if you want to do something that should, for any reasons, have a good (say at least 5%) to fail.
But you have 2 cases. One, wehere you are ding this action with access rights, and two, where you are doing this without. The second test has to be more difficult or we would be facing the paradoxon of some people with high hacking and low computer skill doing things better illegaly than legaly.
So we need two kinds of tests. One closed test, and one that is harder. Again tehre are two choices for this: Either make it an open test, where the ndoe rolls against you, or just subtract a number related to the node directly from the result.
Finally you only have to consider the actions which should be rolled fore. The more actions you consider "roll-worty" the more complex your system become, the more possibilities you get and the slower it will be.
Thats just about it on what to consider when making up matrix rules:
- you can justify everything, so you can focus on game mechanics
- to make game mechanics as simple as possible connect only desicions - and consequnces - to rolls
- make it consistent in itself
- make it balanced so that it is consistent with your game world
The rest is just a matter of personal taste: What is considered worthy rolling for.
| QUOTE |
| Thats why the simpelest Matrix rules are those, that have a dice roll related to every desicion you make. Of cours you can ask why even roll, but then you are questioning the paradigm that in RPGs you roll to do something if this something is important and could fail and will ahve some consequences if it failed (if something has no consequnces, it should never be rolled for). |
| QUOTE |
| Finally you only have to consider the actions which should be rolled fore. The more actions you consider "roll-worty" the more complex your system become, the more possibilities you get and the slower it will be. |
| QUOTE |
| The rest is just a matter of personal taste: What is considered worthy rolling for. |
I find it interesting that your train of thought went from "roll for every decision" to "decide what is worth rolling for".
The latter of which, obviously, is the point of this thread.
And I think a lot more stuff factors into it then personal taste. Game balance, streamlining, continuity, and upgrade potential are all examples of things that get effected when you add or take away die rolls. Except for "upgrade potential" I think most of this suffers when you add die rolls to the same task and has been seriously lacking in previous (and current RAW) Matrix rules.
Further, if your tying game mechanics (like how many dice rolls to roll) to character/player decisions, you have to find some way to define "decisions". If I say I hack the camera, is that a decision? If I say I'm looking for a wireless node, is that a decision? It doesn't sound like I had much choice in that if I wanted to hack the camera. If a streetsam wants to shoot someone, is that a decision? If he wants to take the gun out of his holster first, is that a decision?
Main line of thought is more like:
Only roll for every desicion -> further reduce the number of rolls by sorting out those desicions that are important to you or your rules system
Definition of desicion: Something that somebody can choose to do or choose not to do, while both actions would have some benefit and some drawbacks over the other.
If a choice has only benefits or only drawbacks over another choice, there is no desicion. You just logically do what its clearly best.
Of course the boarders in this definition especially what is considered a drawback or a benefit are fluent.
Only roll for every desicion -> further reduce the number of rolls by sorting out those desicions that are important to you or your rules system
Definition of desicion: Something that somebody can choose to do or choose not to do, while both actions would have some benefit and some drawbacks over the other.
If a choice has only benefits or only drawbacks over another choice, there is no desicion. You just logically do what its clearly best.
Of course the boarders in this definition especially what is considered a drawback or a benefit are fluent.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| Main line of thought is more like: Only roll for every desicion -> further reduce the number of rolls by sorting out those desicions that are important to you or your rules system Definition of desicion: Something that somebody can choose to do or choose not to do, while both actions would have some benefit and some drawbacks over the other. If a choice has only benefits or only drawbacks over another choice, there is no desicion. You just logically do what its clearly best. Of course the boarders in this definition especially what is considered a drawback or a benefit are fluent. |
So based on this criteria, are you for or against Garrowolf's removing of matrix perception tests?
Well, perception test do not really fall into the whole "desicion" classification. Of course everybody wants to percieve everything and it is thus not a desicion to percieve (everybody will want to do it alwayswith mostly now drawbacks).
Its good to bring that up. Apparently there is another reason to roll dice for: Something that has a large impact on the outcome of a scene even if there is no desicion that triggers them.
So I would roll for perception if the outcome of the test is influencing the outcome of the scene. And it definitley influences things if you either notice the stealthed IC or not. (Or whether you can evade a trap or simmilar examples)
But I would agree with Garrowolf that one roll should be enough. Multiple rolles that cover the same thing can always be transformed into one test with a lower or higher threshold. Its like your "one roll per scene" rule. After all, you can transform probabilities after X rolls into the same probability after one roll, by manipulating dice numbers, or thresholds.
This can of course change, if the number of dice rolls is not known. For example in my rules, an IC that spotted you, rolls perception tests every time you do something illegaly. I can not transform this into one roll up front, because at this point it is not know how many illegal actions the hacker is going to take.
So the whole thing is not that easy.
Its good to bring that up. Apparently there is another reason to roll dice for: Something that has a large impact on the outcome of a scene even if there is no desicion that triggers them.
So I would roll for perception if the outcome of the test is influencing the outcome of the scene. And it definitley influences things if you either notice the stealthed IC or not. (Or whether you can evade a trap or simmilar examples)
But I would agree with Garrowolf that one roll should be enough. Multiple rolles that cover the same thing can always be transformed into one test with a lower or higher threshold. Its like your "one roll per scene" rule. After all, you can transform probabilities after X rolls into the same probability after one roll, by manipulating dice numbers, or thresholds.
This can of course change, if the number of dice rolls is not known. For example in my rules, an IC that spotted you, rolls perception tests every time you do something illegaly. I can not transform this into one roll up front, because at this point it is not know how many illegal actions the hacker is going to take.
So the whole thing is not that easy.
| QUOTE |
| After all, you can transform probabilities after X rolls into the same probability after one roll, by manipulating dice numbers, or thresholds. |
This is a beautiful way of summarizing the concepts Garrowolf has described. Very useful.
| QUOTE |
| This can of course change, if the number of dice rolls is not known. For example in my rules, an IC that spotted you, rolls perception tests every time you do something illegaly. I can not transform this into one roll up front, because at this point it is not know how many illegal actions the hacker is going to take. |
Extend the concept a little further? A hacker performs an illegal action and then the ice would percieve him or not, right? What happens then? I would presume this leads to cybercombat or some such thing. I would assume the outcome of the cybercombat makes the resolution of the illegal action harder or easier, depending, or even possible or impossible. Therefore, why not just calculate the odds of winning the cybercombat into the initial illegal action? It's still all stuff stemming from the same illegal 'decision'.
| QUOTE |
| Its good to bring that up. Apparently there is another reason to roll dice for: Something that has a large impact on the outcome of a scene even if there is no desicion that triggers them. |
I think this is just opening a can of vampric worms.
First of all, I think most scenes should center around player-decisions for how they are resolved, so introducing a game concept for something that impacts the scene regardless of a player's decisions is poor game design, in my opinion.
Second, you'll have to describe 'large impact' which can pretty much be anything. Would you make someone have a separate roll to see if their gun jams every time they shoot? It would be a large impact on the scene. Would you make someone roll to load a program so that he could edit a file? It would be a large impact if he couldn't.
Third, wouldn't it make more sense that occurrences within the game environment make tasks easier or harder in response to player's decisions, rather than happening on their own? I think Garrowolf's example of perception is perfect for this. Why roll to see if the IC sees you? Why not just have a player roll his Stealth against a piece a threshold based on IC perception? And instead of doing this every time, why not just one roll with the number of net hits the system scores determining how many of the IC see you or when? Perhaps, for example, the net hits of a stealth test could determine how many illegal actions are performed before some IC responds?
Fourth, if we need mechanics to determine things for which there is no decision being made by any party, maybe a dice roll isn't the best mechanic for this. Maybe we should just lump the effect into another roll, linking their success or failure, or maybe we should exploit the glitch mechanics more, or maybe we should just compare attributes or something.
Well one of the things that I tried to figure out when deciding my matrix rules was what was actually being seen. Let's break down the idea of a perception test for a moment.
You are testing to see if there is a user in the system. This would be a yes/no. If you only have one user then the chances of being noticed doing anything are significantly higher. But let us just think about a system that has a decent amount of traffic - say some corporate server.
Okay the system has a connection that is crossing the firewall so it knows that there is traffic from outside. If the hacker has supressed the firewall then they have gotten this far. The firewall is the primary determining factor on if a person belongs as far as I cn tell. The system has been spoofed to that point at least.
Now unless you have nested firewalls (which you theoretically could) then you are considered a normal user with basic access. The security at this point knows you are in the system but doesn't consider you strange.
We can handle this part with an access roll. You got in and can navigate around the system.
What can a matrix perception test on the part of the security system tell it at this point? Well you have gotten access and presumably not set off any alarms (glitched your roll), so it thinks that you belong. Will it watch you closely? Probably not if there is a normal amount of traffic in the system.
Okay so you decide to act strange but not do anything illegal. What does the security do? Nothing. Keep in mind that a person with the ability to open multiple windows at a time and exist in several systems at the same time, which is entirely normal, will act like a distracted idiot staring at the walls. So what constitues strange behavior? And how does a security agent know what is strange for a human? I don't see any psychology programs for agents as the norm. If they aren't doing anything illegal and they have some importance in the world but not necessarily in this system then harassing them because they are acting strange will just get the programmer fired and all the agents will be nicer and we go back to he didn't do anything illegal.
So where does that leave a perception test now? Well you can't use it usefully to determine if they belong, you are already know that they are there, and you can't notice strange behavior. So what is left? You can tell if someone is doing something that would trip an alarm. But.... why bother if it is going to trip an alarm?
Anything that would fool the system is going to fool the agents the same amount or you are going to have to greatly increase the complexity of the system. An agent is basically the same as a robot and they can be fairly stupid when it comes to human behavoir. You are basically left with a series of alarms that the hacker may or may not be able to bypass. There is nothing from the system's standpoint for matrix perception tests to really tell you.
Now if you think about it from a users standpoint you still have problems. The interface supplies you with information that it thinks you would find useful but it will not display hidden processes. Therefor in order to find out the information that you want you have to change what the system is telling you. Now how does looking harder have anythingto do with this. I can see where matrix perception might either automatically open hidden processes to you or be used as a way of noticing a detail if you are overwhelmed with icons but I think that this can be done better other ways. Change your access level so that the information is available to you. Use a normal perception check since it is visual information anyway.
So what is the point of matrix perception from the user's stand point?
Not much.
I'm not talking about preventing people from noticing things in the matrix. I'm just saying that there are limits to what you are going to be able to notice in the first place and any information that is available is put right out there for you to see. I mean that is the point of VR in the first place.
So why slow down play with rolls to either see things you can't miss or things that you can't see?
You are testing to see if there is a user in the system. This would be a yes/no. If you only have one user then the chances of being noticed doing anything are significantly higher. But let us just think about a system that has a decent amount of traffic - say some corporate server.
Okay the system has a connection that is crossing the firewall so it knows that there is traffic from outside. If the hacker has supressed the firewall then they have gotten this far. The firewall is the primary determining factor on if a person belongs as far as I cn tell. The system has been spoofed to that point at least.
Now unless you have nested firewalls (which you theoretically could) then you are considered a normal user with basic access. The security at this point knows you are in the system but doesn't consider you strange.
We can handle this part with an access roll. You got in and can navigate around the system.
What can a matrix perception test on the part of the security system tell it at this point? Well you have gotten access and presumably not set off any alarms (glitched your roll), so it thinks that you belong. Will it watch you closely? Probably not if there is a normal amount of traffic in the system.
Okay so you decide to act strange but not do anything illegal. What does the security do? Nothing. Keep in mind that a person with the ability to open multiple windows at a time and exist in several systems at the same time, which is entirely normal, will act like a distracted idiot staring at the walls. So what constitues strange behavior? And how does a security agent know what is strange for a human? I don't see any psychology programs for agents as the norm. If they aren't doing anything illegal and they have some importance in the world but not necessarily in this system then harassing them because they are acting strange will just get the programmer fired and all the agents will be nicer and we go back to he didn't do anything illegal.
So where does that leave a perception test now? Well you can't use it usefully to determine if they belong, you are already know that they are there, and you can't notice strange behavior. So what is left? You can tell if someone is doing something that would trip an alarm. But.... why bother if it is going to trip an alarm?
Anything that would fool the system is going to fool the agents the same amount or you are going to have to greatly increase the complexity of the system. An agent is basically the same as a robot and they can be fairly stupid when it comes to human behavoir. You are basically left with a series of alarms that the hacker may or may not be able to bypass. There is nothing from the system's standpoint for matrix perception tests to really tell you.
Now if you think about it from a users standpoint you still have problems. The interface supplies you with information that it thinks you would find useful but it will not display hidden processes. Therefor in order to find out the information that you want you have to change what the system is telling you. Now how does looking harder have anythingto do with this. I can see where matrix perception might either automatically open hidden processes to you or be used as a way of noticing a detail if you are overwhelmed with icons but I think that this can be done better other ways. Change your access level so that the information is available to you. Use a normal perception check since it is visual information anyway.
So what is the point of matrix perception from the user's stand point?
Not much.
I'm not talking about preventing people from noticing things in the matrix. I'm just saying that there are limits to what you are going to be able to notice in the first place and any information that is available is put right out there for you to see. I mean that is the point of VR in the first place.
So why slow down play with rolls to either see things you can't miss or things that you can't see?
Cetiah, I think that you would be better enlightened by watching better cyberpunk movies. The Matrix movies are fun and all but they fell for their own illusions pretty quickly. They told you that the matrix was not real in the first movie and then believed what it was telling you in the second and third. They are very poor examples of VR systems because the point of the matrix was to fool people all the time.
Better VR systems would be Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex or even Johnny Mnemonic.
A good way of understanding VR is to think of video game programming. You have to process everything that is going on with the action in the form of numbers. You determine if an object is trying to occupy the same space and stop it's motion in that direction - you limit the grid location of the character from having the same values as the stationary object. Then you determine things like damage effect and check to see if the character can keep moving at all. Then you check to see if there is a state change in the character that will limit it's action or change the sprite table that it is using to reflect damage. Then you determine what objects the player can see. You use a process called ray tracing to start from the view point of the camera and backtrack to each object to see if it is in the line of sight. Any part of an object visible will be rendered. Then there is a second process or ray tracing that detects lighting that would shine on the object and changes the color of the object to match the expected lighting of it.
This is just a crude break down but notice how much of the process was occuring behind the scenes. Now if you were going to hack it you would do something like change the processes for clipping so you can walk through walls. You change the process for determining damage or set you armor rating to higher then the most powerful weapon. You could cause the ray tracing to only return a wireframe so that you could see through the walls.
From the programmers and the hackers point of view this is how the worl looks to them. They would look at the code, not the pretty lights. They could change the world radically very easily if they are interacting with the VR interface at all. If you can change the processes of the world then why does the display mean much of anything to you?
A better way to think about VR is it's a chat room. You have VR for social interaction. You don't need it to read a file. You can make it into a book if you want to but don't mistake that choice as something forced on you by the system.
Better VR systems would be Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex or even Johnny Mnemonic.
A good way of understanding VR is to think of video game programming. You have to process everything that is going on with the action in the form of numbers. You determine if an object is trying to occupy the same space and stop it's motion in that direction - you limit the grid location of the character from having the same values as the stationary object. Then you determine things like damage effect and check to see if the character can keep moving at all. Then you check to see if there is a state change in the character that will limit it's action or change the sprite table that it is using to reflect damage. Then you determine what objects the player can see. You use a process called ray tracing to start from the view point of the camera and backtrack to each object to see if it is in the line of sight. Any part of an object visible will be rendered. Then there is a second process or ray tracing that detects lighting that would shine on the object and changes the color of the object to match the expected lighting of it.
This is just a crude break down but notice how much of the process was occuring behind the scenes. Now if you were going to hack it you would do something like change the processes for clipping so you can walk through walls. You change the process for determining damage or set you armor rating to higher then the most powerful weapon. You could cause the ray tracing to only return a wireframe so that you could see through the walls.
From the programmers and the hackers point of view this is how the worl looks to them. They would look at the code, not the pretty lights. They could change the world radically very easily if they are interacting with the VR interface at all. If you can change the processes of the world then why does the display mean much of anything to you?
A better way to think about VR is it's a chat room. You have VR for social interaction. You don't need it to read a file. You can make it into a book if you want to but don't mistake that choice as something forced on you by the system.
| QUOTE |
| Cetiah, I think that you would be better enlightened by watching better cyberpunk movies. |
I also used Snow Crash in my example. Please tell me you didn't just knock Snow Crash! It doesn't get much better than an expert hacker / swordmaster who works as a pizza deliverator for Uncle Enzo's mafia-owned pizza service.
| QUOTE |
| From the programmers and the hackers point of view this is how the world looks to them. They would look at the code, not the pretty lights. They could change the world radically very easily if they are interacting with the VR interface at all. If you can change the processes of the world then why does the display mean much of anything to you? |
No no no no no no!!!
What have you done?
Virtual Reality is more than just an interface. If that's all it was, some convinient GUI for users, there would be no reason for a hacker to ever use it. They would use programming languages that work beneath it. In fact, I compare Virtual Reality, not to a GUI, but to a programming language. Most people, even programmers and hackers today, have only a limited ability to work with binary code, if at all. They use programming languages which offer a little more convinience, and work to translate the rules of the programming language into the Language of the Machine. The programmer still has to learn the programming language and work within its rules. I consder Virtual Reality to be equivilent to this programming language, with the basic code itself completely impossible to program directly due to the sheer amount of code involved. I'm also playing with the idea that the code is evolving over time, and even protecting itself.
Your analysis might make sense in regards to computers today and our own internet and even CS engineering, but you've just relegated cyberpunk Virtual Reality to a cheap gimmick. The whole point of Virtual Reality is that its supposed to be some all-pervasive Reality, in which people are bound to its rules. It's not just another computer program. It manages so much information that one can't access its code directly, but to program in the Virtual Reality world you have to use the Virtual Reality world, giving rise to the idea that Virtual Reality itself can evolve. There's no longer anyone capable of programming the Virtual Reality, its file and structures aren't stored on some computer some where but split up over anyone whose accessing it. In fact, if anything, accessing it expands its capabilities.
I've actually been playing with the idea that the free exchange of information over the Matrix, with little icons running around between nodes, some nodes being active and some not, might have some analogy to brain chemistry or a circulatory systems, giving rise to a popular movement that the Matrix itself may very much be alive, much like the popular Gaia theory today.
Regarding people as a prisoner of their information networks is the central theme in cyberpunk; the whole point of the genre was to explore these issues and their repercussions. You can't do that while assuming the system is made to conveniently serve an adapt to people's needs; it has to be the other way around. That's the point.
Don't degrade the possibilities down to a 'for your convinience' e-shopping website.
I'd just like to point out the irony of this situation. The three people who've made their own Matrix rules are the three least likely to agree on anything Matrix related, because, let's face it, we've already proved how stubborn we can be when it comes to doggedly upholding our interpretations of the Matrix.
@Garrowolf:
Of course a perception test is useless when there is nothing to percieve. A hacked in user doing things that are legal within his hacked rights can not be identified as a hacker (unless by looking at logs how he hacked in).
But when you are actually doing a hack action, this can be noticed via a perception test. Why shouldnt it? You are doing illegal things with the node. Anybody in the node monitoring node processes can see it if he is good enough to pierce through the precautions the hacker is taking to obfuscate his actions.
Concerning VR:
VR is there to provide you information in a way that is more efficent than by looking at a code. Of course VR is not actually there. It is just there to "guide your brain", but that can be a drastic advantage, helping you to process stuff much faster and better.
Of course a perception test is useless when there is nothing to percieve. A hacked in user doing things that are legal within his hacked rights can not be identified as a hacker (unless by looking at logs how he hacked in).
But when you are actually doing a hack action, this can be noticed via a perception test. Why shouldnt it? You are doing illegal things with the node. Anybody in the node monitoring node processes can see it if he is good enough to pierce through the precautions the hacker is taking to obfuscate his actions.
Concerning VR:
VR is there to provide you information in a way that is more efficent than by looking at a code. Of course VR is not actually there. It is just there to "guide your brain", but that can be a drastic advantage, helping you to process stuff much faster and better.
| QUOTE (cetiah) |
| This has a whole genre associated with it that Shadowrun was trying to embrace. A genre in which digital cybercombat and sculpted systems are the norm. |
Don't you think it's time we stopped trying to emulate Tron?
| QUOTE (Garrowolf @ Jan 27 2007, 12:10 AM) |
| But the matrix system doesn't reflect actual computers. If you know much about computers then you know that most of this doesn't make any sense. |
At certain points I scream, in my inside voice, "HEY BRAIN! LET IT GO IT'S A FUCKING GAME!" Because I swear to myself quite often.
Seriously though, SR4 has maybe got a smidgen of an edge on SR3 for "makes more sense than a strung out crankhead". But that's like saying shale isn't as hard as granite when you've got the choice of having a rock of either of them bounce off your head.
However if you treat SR4 as an abstraction of a high enough level it does make some sense plus is at least somewhat internally consistant. Far more than it is often given credit for in posts here, by some whom I highly question their authority on exactly what makes sense for computers.
What I was saying about the making a test to see if someone is seeing you doing something illegal is that all you have to do is have an alarm on the sensitive area. This would be alot more effecient then having a roving agent that happens to notice you doing something. Basically what I'm saying is that unless the hacker does something to cover up what he is doing then he should automatically be "seen". If he does do something and it is good enough then he shouldn't be seen. It is basically an unnecessary test (and therefore an unnecessary roll). The system would always be looking at the places that are sensitive is my point. But if you succeeded in hiding it then why test twice to see if you do.
I'm actually trying to make it easier on the hacker. Some people have suggested that the sysop or the system be making a perception check for every action the hacker does or every IP the server has. I'm trying to say that the system doesn't need to and it makes it much harder on the hacker AND it slows down the game for the GM and the hacker to be making so many rolls. We can make it game faster and make it so that other people are not so annoyed by hackers by finding ways to reduce the rolls.
I'm actually trying to make it easier on the hacker. Some people have suggested that the sysop or the system be making a perception check for every action the hacker does or every IP the server has. I'm trying to say that the system doesn't need to and it makes it much harder on the hacker AND it slows down the game for the GM and the hacker to be making so many rolls. We can make it game faster and make it so that other people are not so annoyed by hackers by finding ways to reduce the rolls.
Well, I am only suggestion one perception roll per action, which is disguised by stealth (which every hacker will use). If it is not disguised by stealth, any IC would auto notice it.
Futhermore, the system itself resits the hacking attempt, but that is something compeltely different.
Futhermore, the system itself resits the hacking attempt, but that is something compeltely different.
There are also alot of assumptions about how computers and networking work, however people fail to realize the amount of abstraction there is between the various levels of interface and the real system that lies underneath it.
I have been trying to find anything that says that VR isn't a GUI. As far as I can tell from the descriptions it is. It may be a full sensory user interface but that is just because of the simsense added on. It is still a glorified desktop. All of your tools are 3d icons (that is what the game calls them). Instead of clicking on your program you pull it out of a sack or something. You could see a pdf as a book if you wanted to or put a floating window in the air.
I'm sure that there is a VR programming language. I remember earlier versions of the game actually had several programming languages listed. You would use them like creating an object in the sims. Then you could use the actual programming language to create an object or behavior that you don't already have coded. This way you could create that Cthulhu-Eats-Your-Head hat you always wanted. You could also create a lot of hacking programs and make them look like something normal. I personally think that the Matrix is going to look alot like the Sims. (actually this description may help me with new players)
The actual programming languages would still be a collection of denser blocks of repeated code for the visual behavior and the actual action codes which could be simplier. It is basically like coding at three different levels all the time: VR, Visual, Actual Coding. At no point would you need to mess with the binary (which would be a bad idea anyway because it would require actual compiling by archetecture).
About Snow Crash: I love the book. It is still a bad decription of what a VR environment would be like because you can't have true negative space in VR. What I mean by that is that you have no one to one correspondance with the physical world. You would never have miles of empty space out in the VR world because there is no actual VR world. Your commlink may have a room or a house in it in VR. A Server could have a shopping mall in it. A huge server could have a whole planet or two in it. If there was a one to one corespondance like in Snow Crash then they would cancel each other out in space.
Snow Crash sort of has the right idea about interacting with other objects. They take it in a strange direction at the end though. In it he correctly points out that in order to interact with another avatar they would both have to agree to the attributes and parameters of a combat system - specifically that a sword does a set amount of damage to their avatars and their avatars can take a set amount. He does this by tricking them at the door. What he would actually be doing is providing them with an outer avatar that obeys the rules he created but is invisible until it has to write wound effects on the outer avatar and then uses that as a way to not only eject them from the club but ban them for a period of time. That is the best I can figure on what he was doing but I don't see how this logic would carry to the motorcycle fight at the end unless he had these commands as a series of viruses.... Maybe
I don't think that injecting a little reality into virtual reality would break down the basis for the cyberpunk genre. Very little of the stories I have read in cyberpunk actually even had any kind of cybercombat. They were more about the dystopia of the setting. I've seen several that had hacking and counter hacking. It's not integral to cyberpunk at all. It was just a part of Shadowrun early on based on a some writers who didn't understand computers. Even they didn't always get it as confused as Shadowrun eventually did.
Keep in mind that the Matrix movies are not a good analog to understanding the Matrix in Shadowrun. In shadowrun it is an advanced internet for communications. In the Matrix Movies it was a prison to confuse the prisoners. You could use VR for both but these systems have totally different reasons for working the way they do.
Actually in the original script for the Matrix the people were not being used for their power, which is a silly idea, they would have lost most of it in those lightning arcs and they would have reactors still. They were being used as a neural computer network that the machines were running on in our subconscious. They needed people to believe normally because it was distrupting their processors. This actually makes alot of sense. Especially sense the whole lack of solar power stuff was disproven by the third movie when they showed a hovercraft piercing the clouds. They could have circumvented that problem if they had to. Even if they didn't know how to create a nuclear reactor by then they could have gotten some humans to figure it out in the matrix and then build it themselves.
BTW Cetiah I don't want you to think that I am trying to bash you. I just enjoy debating. I work as a security guard all night and I try to find any intellectual stimulation I can. Theorizing on gaming topics and trying to write science fiction are pretty much it.
I'm sure that there is a VR programming language. I remember earlier versions of the game actually had several programming languages listed. You would use them like creating an object in the sims. Then you could use the actual programming language to create an object or behavior that you don't already have coded. This way you could create that Cthulhu-Eats-Your-Head hat you always wanted. You could also create a lot of hacking programs and make them look like something normal. I personally think that the Matrix is going to look alot like the Sims. (actually this description may help me with new players)
The actual programming languages would still be a collection of denser blocks of repeated code for the visual behavior and the actual action codes which could be simplier. It is basically like coding at three different levels all the time: VR, Visual, Actual Coding. At no point would you need to mess with the binary (which would be a bad idea anyway because it would require actual compiling by archetecture).
About Snow Crash: I love the book. It is still a bad decription of what a VR environment would be like because you can't have true negative space in VR. What I mean by that is that you have no one to one correspondance with the physical world. You would never have miles of empty space out in the VR world because there is no actual VR world. Your commlink may have a room or a house in it in VR. A Server could have a shopping mall in it. A huge server could have a whole planet or two in it. If there was a one to one corespondance like in Snow Crash then they would cancel each other out in space.
Snow Crash sort of has the right idea about interacting with other objects. They take it in a strange direction at the end though. In it he correctly points out that in order to interact with another avatar they would both have to agree to the attributes and parameters of a combat system - specifically that a sword does a set amount of damage to their avatars and their avatars can take a set amount. He does this by tricking them at the door. What he would actually be doing is providing them with an outer avatar that obeys the rules he created but is invisible until it has to write wound effects on the outer avatar and then uses that as a way to not only eject them from the club but ban them for a period of time. That is the best I can figure on what he was doing but I don't see how this logic would carry to the motorcycle fight at the end unless he had these commands as a series of viruses.... Maybe
I don't think that injecting a little reality into virtual reality would break down the basis for the cyberpunk genre. Very little of the stories I have read in cyberpunk actually even had any kind of cybercombat. They were more about the dystopia of the setting. I've seen several that had hacking and counter hacking. It's not integral to cyberpunk at all. It was just a part of Shadowrun early on based on a some writers who didn't understand computers. Even they didn't always get it as confused as Shadowrun eventually did.
Keep in mind that the Matrix movies are not a good analog to understanding the Matrix in Shadowrun. In shadowrun it is an advanced internet for communications. In the Matrix Movies it was a prison to confuse the prisoners. You could use VR for both but these systems have totally different reasons for working the way they do.
Actually in the original script for the Matrix the people were not being used for their power, which is a silly idea, they would have lost most of it in those lightning arcs and they would have reactors still. They were being used as a neural computer network that the machines were running on in our subconscious. They needed people to believe normally because it was distrupting their processors. This actually makes alot of sense. Especially sense the whole lack of solar power stuff was disproven by the third movie when they showed a hovercraft piercing the clouds. They could have circumvented that problem if they had to. Even if they didn't know how to create a nuclear reactor by then they could have gotten some humans to figure it out in the matrix and then build it themselves.
BTW Cetiah I don't want you to think that I am trying to bash you. I just enjoy debating. I work as a security guard all night and I try to find any intellectual stimulation I can. Theorizing on gaming topics and trying to write science fiction are pretty much it.
| QUOTE (Garrowolf) |
| I don't think that injecting a little reality into virtual reality would break down the basis for the cyberpunk genre. Very little of the stories I have read in cyberpunk actually even had any kind of cybercombat. They were more about the dystopia of the setting. I've seen several that had hacking and counter hacking. It's not integral to cyberpunk at all. It was just a part of Shadowrun early on based on a some writers who didn't understand computers. Even they didn't always get it as confused as Shadowrun eventually did. |
Well, you see, the odd thing is that we agree on this issue. That is, I don't believe the modern Matrix really runs the way I previously described; but I think there were reasonable pseuo-solid reasons for assuming it did before, when everything was assumed to be VR. Unlike today's infrastructure, the Matrix was made to work that way, from the ground up. It's not just a mix-mesh of different computers trying to communicate; it's a stable central medium of communication and universal protocol. Previously, that medium used Virtual Reality; and presumably, all the catchings of the genre that went into it including nodes where you walked through doors, IC that physically walked around attack folks, programs loaded as icons "from a sack" (as you put it, and so forth.
I don't think any of that makes sense anymore for SR4 model. Not only is it fairly unrealistic compared to the otherwise reasonable realistic portrayal of AR, but it doesn't strike me as being particularly compatible with AR. I don't see why a node would have BOTH an AR and VR interface, if the two were exclusive. If the two are complementary, that just strikes me as even weirder - the idea that your tiny little AR command is being translated into a complex virtual reality somewhere so that the system can break it down into simple commands is kind of silly. If it works the other way, I could sort of see it - which is basically what you're describing - where the Virtual Reality doesn't really exist unless someone is using it, making it a core on top of AR so that the system breaks down Virtual Reality commands into a series of AR commands and then breaks them down further. But then, Virtual Reality would suck. Which, I'm kind of okay with, except that a lot of Shadowrun players seem to like the idea of Virtual Reality being better because the old Matrix worked that way.
Personally, while I could see that the old Matrix might have been built that way, I really don't think they would make their new Matrix in exactly the same way but add a layer of AR. I prefer to think of it as a complete re-writie. Those familiar with the old Matrix would be completely unable to use their hacking skills in this one (which might be why there's a whole new skill now...?) but even then, maybe they could use a VR interface as a crutch even though it wouldn't be as close to direct access as AR.
Just to clarify, VR in Shadowrun has always been an interface method and not the program code or underlying structure of the Matrix. In fact, this was described in VRI and II, as well as Matrix. Simply put, everything in the Matrix is a representation of the underlying code construct and every such item is represented by an Icon. Each Icon (be it a persona, agent, node, file, etc) has a code component and a header which contained not only a file identifier but all the relevant simsense code (in the case of VR) necessary to interface with it. In the case of SR4 this header also contains simpler visual/other sensory cues for use with AR displays. Neither VR nor AR are intended to represent the underlying code.
I would toss in the idea, that on top of AR and VR header information every matrix entity could also have knowsoft header information. So you just look at it and know the "class" and such of the content.
Something along these lines:
You have a data package containing a cook book.
In AR you would see the image of a cook book standing around in your virtual shelf when you chose to display your virtual shelf in your room.
In VR you would see a book standing in a shelf in a virtual room, displaying title and stuff.
The additional knowsoft header (you need a datajack for this) would make it that you just "Know" that it is cookbook X with this and that kind of recipes by Author Y, by just looking at it.
Something along these lines:
You have a data package containing a cook book.
In AR you would see the image of a cook book standing around in your virtual shelf when you chose to display your virtual shelf in your room.
In VR you would see a book standing in a shelf in a virtual room, displaying title and stuff.
The additional knowsoft header (you need a datajack for this) would make it that you just "Know" that it is cookbook X with this and that kind of recipes by Author Y, by just looking at it.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| I would toss in the idea, that on top of AR and VR header information every matrix entity could also have knowsoft header information. So you just look at it and know the "class" and such of the content. |
That's basically what I intended with "file identifier" above.
Well that is why I was thinking of it from the GUI point of view. The file may or may not have the cover detail information but the interface is going to recognize the file extention and translate it how you want. It would work just like any browser file extension library. In fact the AR file doesn't really have to be anything more then a url and a simple text file to allow filtering. You get within range, your interface checks the text against it's filters for things you would like, then it downloads the file from the non-virtual parts of the matrix and you have your floating AR ad. It just doesn't appear until you are closer to it. The system would have a local ad buffer that would reduce the amount of accessing necessary so that if you walk out of range and then back in range it doesn't have to redownload the file. You could even have most of the local files automatically download when you say walk into a mall. This would give you all the ads and a map. That way if you select the map then you could see the ad on the side of the map to notice a sale.
Actually I don't see why there needs to be a difference between the VR and the AR for most file actions. You can hold an image of a book in AR just as easily as in VR. The AR doesnt have to be floating windows that are partially see through. If you have the AR with a minimum level of tactile simsense then you could pull a scroll out of your ass that only you could see. With the same systems that would allow you to think a command in VR you could do it in AR. There is no real reason why not, just habit of the way we are thinking about the setting.
Basically I think of the matrix as composed of several different networks. There is the internet as it is today but faster. There is the media network which replaced cable tv and movie theaters. There is the traffic grid which has a 3d version of each city. There are several VR locations like a central mall for the UCAS covering all the chain stores and each megacorp would have it's own virtual mall. There would be a variety of entertainment systems as well. (And I can't remember the novel I got this from - I think it was one of the tad williams novels but I'm not sure)
The advantage of VR is that you can have a server that is running a model of say a cafe. It may be fairly small. Now your actual VR filter would be like a chat program. You go in and when your friends log on they are in the same room and you see each other. You hang out and have fun. You could go in and log a different list and those people would be visible. Now if you were seeing it from the server's side you would see 6,000 people in that same room with only 15 seats. You could do the same as in the malls. They can be as full or as empty as you like. You could only have the people that have similar interests show up, etc.
From the actual matrix perspective that is what I think will happen. But ther is another level that makes the matrix SEEM to be just VR. Your commlink has a reality filter on it. This is basically like a theme manager on your desktop. You turn on your reality filter and suddenly you are in full VR. You would see some sort of office first. This is where you would work from. You access your files based on what ever metaphor you like (I could see some bizarre stuff at this point - human skin scrolls, flying monkey agents, whatever). You could have your agent running around like a secretary or a cartoon character bringing you things.
Then you access a web site. You could see it as a newspaper or a scroll or have your agent sing the text to you. OR you could have it load as a VR location. You go out your door and enter the web page. Any pictures on the site become pictures in an office or on a slide show. The web site could have a series of extra files that are loading in this case to load the standard office meeting room that comes with most reality filters (if it doesn't then your system will ask you if you want to download an update or use a different setting). It presents the web site information as an office meeting. If you ask a question then your system will first go through the FAQ. So far everything is from a small number of text files and a few images. The rest is your commlink and reality filter.
Now if you ask a question that it can't answer it will ask you if you want to it to ask someone else. If you do it will contact the web site and ask the system the question. It's agent will think about it and answer if it can. If not then it will try and call a real secretary. They may answer by verbally answering it or by openning a window in your interface to see you and answer you. Or it could say that the information is not available and move on.
If you ask to speak with someone in this company and they agree then that person will enter their reality filter. They will see the room as whatever they set it to be. This could be a normal office and yours could be a dungeon scene or the other way around. They enter the room and shake hands with you. You talk for a while and then you both leave. The rooms disappear for both of you afterward. This doesn't create a room on the server. The call was passed to the company man's commlink. It might have been routed through the server for quality assurance and so you can't get the guy's commlink address.
After that he goes to the Ares Matrix Mall by opening another door in his office.
That would be the reason that most people think that the matrix is all VR.
Actually I don't see why there needs to be a difference between the VR and the AR for most file actions. You can hold an image of a book in AR just as easily as in VR. The AR doesnt have to be floating windows that are partially see through. If you have the AR with a minimum level of tactile simsense then you could pull a scroll out of your ass that only you could see. With the same systems that would allow you to think a command in VR you could do it in AR. There is no real reason why not, just habit of the way we are thinking about the setting.
Basically I think of the matrix as composed of several different networks. There is the internet as it is today but faster. There is the media network which replaced cable tv and movie theaters. There is the traffic grid which has a 3d version of each city. There are several VR locations like a central mall for the UCAS covering all the chain stores and each megacorp would have it's own virtual mall. There would be a variety of entertainment systems as well. (And I can't remember the novel I got this from - I think it was one of the tad williams novels but I'm not sure)
The advantage of VR is that you can have a server that is running a model of say a cafe. It may be fairly small. Now your actual VR filter would be like a chat program. You go in and when your friends log on they are in the same room and you see each other. You hang out and have fun. You could go in and log a different list and those people would be visible. Now if you were seeing it from the server's side you would see 6,000 people in that same room with only 15 seats. You could do the same as in the malls. They can be as full or as empty as you like. You could only have the people that have similar interests show up, etc.
From the actual matrix perspective that is what I think will happen. But ther is another level that makes the matrix SEEM to be just VR. Your commlink has a reality filter on it. This is basically like a theme manager on your desktop. You turn on your reality filter and suddenly you are in full VR. You would see some sort of office first. This is where you would work from. You access your files based on what ever metaphor you like (I could see some bizarre stuff at this point - human skin scrolls, flying monkey agents, whatever). You could have your agent running around like a secretary or a cartoon character bringing you things.
Then you access a web site. You could see it as a newspaper or a scroll or have your agent sing the text to you. OR you could have it load as a VR location. You go out your door and enter the web page. Any pictures on the site become pictures in an office or on a slide show. The web site could have a series of extra files that are loading in this case to load the standard office meeting room that comes with most reality filters (if it doesn't then your system will ask you if you want to download an update or use a different setting). It presents the web site information as an office meeting. If you ask a question then your system will first go through the FAQ. So far everything is from a small number of text files and a few images. The rest is your commlink and reality filter.
Now if you ask a question that it can't answer it will ask you if you want to it to ask someone else. If you do it will contact the web site and ask the system the question. It's agent will think about it and answer if it can. If not then it will try and call a real secretary. They may answer by verbally answering it or by openning a window in your interface to see you and answer you. Or it could say that the information is not available and move on.
If you ask to speak with someone in this company and they agree then that person will enter their reality filter. They will see the room as whatever they set it to be. This could be a normal office and yours could be a dungeon scene or the other way around. They enter the room and shake hands with you. You talk for a while and then you both leave. The rooms disappear for both of you afterward. This doesn't create a room on the server. The call was passed to the company man's commlink. It might have been routed through the server for quality assurance and so you can't get the guy's commlink address.
After that he goes to the Ares Matrix Mall by opening another door in his office.
That would be the reason that most people think that the matrix is all VR.
I'll be honest. I haven't read every post in this thread. Some of it hurt my brain. It made me think harder than I wanted to about the hows and whys of the Matrix.
But here's my two cents: There's this whole debate of "Why VR?" VR seems to impose unnatural limits on one's behavior and perceptions, as exemplified in the whole "sneaking past the security guard IC while he's looking the other way" example. So here's the way I see it. VR is more than your interface. Stripping it away is not the same as when you decide not to use some silly skin on your internet browser. It's like getting rid of the browser.
You don't read raw code, because you're not a machine. That's why code exists. To be translated into something meaningful to a human. Like reality, in the Matrix, there is a huge amount of information around you, to be percieved at all times. Hence perception tests. The guard didn't see you there, because he saw something else. (Why don't IC see raw code? Maybe they do. But that's still a lot of code. They might not get through all of it in time to see you before you're gone. Same effect, slightly different logic.)
Which brings us to AR. If VR is using the Matrix in a good internet browser, then AR is using the internet on your cell phone. It's all there, but performance and ease of use suffer. Moreso in AR, because you aren't seeing all the VR. You are relying on your comm/programs to alert you to anything important.
So, basically, this turned into an almost incoherent ramble of about 5 cents, rather than 2. Ah, well. At least now I know how I want to run my Matrix stuff in more solid terms.
But here's my two cents: There's this whole debate of "Why VR?" VR seems to impose unnatural limits on one's behavior and perceptions, as exemplified in the whole "sneaking past the security guard IC while he's looking the other way" example. So here's the way I see it. VR is more than your interface. Stripping it away is not the same as when you decide not to use some silly skin on your internet browser. It's like getting rid of the browser.
You don't read raw code, because you're not a machine. That's why code exists. To be translated into something meaningful to a human. Like reality, in the Matrix, there is a huge amount of information around you, to be percieved at all times. Hence perception tests. The guard didn't see you there, because he saw something else. (Why don't IC see raw code? Maybe they do. But that's still a lot of code. They might not get through all of it in time to see you before you're gone. Same effect, slightly different logic.)
Which brings us to AR. If VR is using the Matrix in a good internet browser, then AR is using the internet on your cell phone. It's all there, but performance and ease of use suffer. Moreso in AR, because you aren't seeing all the VR. You are relying on your comm/programs to alert you to anything important.
So, basically, this turned into an almost incoherent ramble of about 5 cents, rather than 2. Ah, well. At least now I know how I want to run my Matrix stuff in more solid terms.
Pretty good perspective. The way I've described the whole IC on patrol thing to players is that what's actually happening is that the "IC on patrol" is functioning in many respects like a current day antivirus program (one that's continuously running full system checks). It cycles through all the data, processes, icons, files, subscription lists, and other activity on your node, sector by sector, looking for discrepancies and tell-tales - this is virtually represented as an IC patrolling the simsense representation of the various "sectors"/subsystems in a node. When an IC hits a "sector" that you're in you might still elude it by disguising your presence as legitimate activity or another icon or whatever. In many respects this mirrors the sort of thing that happens when a guard walks by the door you're hiding behind in real life - which is how it might be represented as in VR.
There's also a misconception that a node is an open space or small environment in VR when it could be divided into different rooms ("sectors" as it were) dedicated to different subsystems/functions/operations - just like an SR3 host. So if the IC is checking a subsystem or file you're not accessing, he might not be in the same virtual "room" as you. Technically he is doing Perception Tests on everything in his corner of the node and is focused elsewhere rather than where you "are" (what you are accessing).
Not sure that's as clear as I would have liked but its been a long day and I'm tired.
There's also a misconception that a node is an open space or small environment in VR when it could be divided into different rooms ("sectors" as it were) dedicated to different subsystems/functions/operations - just like an SR3 host. So if the IC is checking a subsystem or file you're not accessing, he might not be in the same virtual "room" as you. Technically he is doing Perception Tests on everything in his corner of the node and is focused elsewhere rather than where you "are" (what you are accessing).
Not sure that's as clear as I would have liked but its been a long day and I'm tired.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| Not sure that's as clear as I would have liked but its been a long day and I'm tired. |
I think all of that was very clear, but it still doesn't answer Garrowolf's initial questions: if the IC is running through some sort of cycle looking through each room, why roll Perception checks for it? Why wouldn't it "percieve" in exactly the same way, presumably the most efficient way, each time? Then its "perception" would be a constant threshold against the hacker's attempts to hide from it.
For two reasons basically:
First because the IC is only as effective as it's Rating allows it to be, it is not infallible, and it's success ratio is variable depending on what it's trying to detect, whether it is being actively countered, and the ability/prog level being used to oppose it. While the IC will always attempt to perform a task to the best of its ability (throwing all its dice into it) that doesn't guarantee success, let alone a given level of success, particularly when someone/something is actively trying to counter it's detection attempt or slip under its radar (note that the Test is only ever required when a hacker is attempting not to be noticed. the IC makes no Perception Test to locate the pdf Icon that's in plain view). Given the possibility that any of it's attempts to detect activity might have failed to detect something that was there before, all IC should be programmed to try again - just to make sure it didn't miss anything or that something hasn't slipped in while it was scanning another part of the node/system.
Second, because and regardless of the presence of a hacker, the data contents of nodes especially in high traffic nodes are not static—they are constantly changing and being modified every time a user saves a file or the commlink backs up a temp file, every time a message comes in, a file is moved to another memory sector, every time someone IMs the users, etc. Meaning everytime the IC's patrol cycle hits a point where a Perception Test might be required the situation may or may not have changed, making it important that it try again anyhow (especially if something minor has changed and it detected nothing "last time around").
First because the IC is only as effective as it's Rating allows it to be, it is not infallible, and it's success ratio is variable depending on what it's trying to detect, whether it is being actively countered, and the ability/prog level being used to oppose it. While the IC will always attempt to perform a task to the best of its ability (throwing all its dice into it) that doesn't guarantee success, let alone a given level of success, particularly when someone/something is actively trying to counter it's detection attempt or slip under its radar (note that the Test is only ever required when a hacker is attempting not to be noticed. the IC makes no Perception Test to locate the pdf Icon that's in plain view). Given the possibility that any of it's attempts to detect activity might have failed to detect something that was there before, all IC should be programmed to try again - just to make sure it didn't miss anything or that something hasn't slipped in while it was scanning another part of the node/system.
Second, because and regardless of the presence of a hacker, the data contents of nodes especially in high traffic nodes are not static—they are constantly changing and being modified every time a user saves a file or the commlink backs up a temp file, every time a message comes in, a file is moved to another memory sector, every time someone IMs the users, etc. Meaning everytime the IC's patrol cycle hits a point where a Perception Test might be required the situation may or may not have changed, making it important that it try again anyhow (especially if something minor has changed and it detected nothing "last time around").
| QUOTE (Synner @ Jan 30 2007, 06:21 PM) |
| this is virtually represented as an IC patrolling the simsense representation of the various "sectors"/subsystems in a node. When an IC hits a "sector" that you're in you might still elude it by disguising your presence as legitimate activity or another icon or whatever. In many respects this mirrors the sort of thing that happens when a guard walks by the door you're hiding behind in real life - which is how it might be represented as in VR. |
Thats the point. It is only represented by you doing this, its not the cause of anything happening in the matrix, its the effect of its actions being represented. The cause is the code action, or the dice roll that is summarizing it.
You do not play it out like in real life, where you say where you hide and how you wait till the IC walks by and so on, because there, hiding behind something is the cause of not being spotted. That is completely irrelevant in VR, the landscape is nonexisting. The only thing what counts is what the code does, and that is the dice roll.
Thats why IC played out like patrolls does not work. It is regular rolls by the IC against counter rolls by the hacker, which then can be represented as the hacker hiding. But the presentation is not the cause, its the result.
It is not like:
GM: An IC enters the room you are in
Hacker: I hide behind the shelf.
GM: Ah OK, you fooled the IC by doing this.
You need the dice roll for that, and for fast gameplay you can leave the representation (which is optional) and only have the diceroll (which is mandatory).
And thats ultimately why you need rules for it and not just an "play it like guards on patroll".
In reality, that is different. Hiding there is the cause of not being spotted and not the representation of sucessfully avoiding to be spotted.
| QUOTE (Serbitar @ Jan 31 2007, 12:13 AM) |
| Thats the point. It is only represented by you doing this, its not the cause of anything happening in the matrix, its the effect of its actions being represented. The cause is the code action, or the dice roll that is summarizing it. |
In this case the representation is simply interpreting active processes and adapting them to a metaphor the human mind can comprehend - ie. it may be a metaphor but it never stops being a translation of what is happening, so in effect to the character there is no difference between what takes place in the "machine code background" and the VR representation.
| QUOTE |
| You do not play it out like in real life, where you say where you hide and how you wait till the IC walks by and so on, because there, hiding behind something is the cause of not being spotted. That is completely irrelevant in VR, the landscape is nonexisting. The only thing what counts is what the code does, and that is the dice roll. |
The point is not a comparison with real life, it's a comparison with Shadowrun "real world" mechanics.
The thing to keep in mind is that in SR real life were the same situation to occur the character would not successfully hide automatically either. The reason for this is that an IC is always actively and efficently looking for intruders, which is to say, were we to nitpick, that the correct comparison would be with a patrolling guard who paranoid he suspects there might be an intruder and is actively searching for evidence of intrusion (rather than just doing the rounds).
Assuming you accept that parallel, it is highly unlikely a flesh and blood runner would get away with what you described in most games. At the very least the security guard would roll an Opposed Perception + Intuition Test against the character's Infiltration (or other relevant Stealth skill) + Agility. Which is to say the IC would go against the hacker's Stealth prog.
I would also beg to differ on your analysis of the VR landscape (or anything therein) being non-existent.
VR constructs always represent "something" that exists as a code construct, even if it's a simple virtual embelishment such as a virtual tree (or a wall, desk, mosaic, etc). It may represent a piece of completely gratuitous simsense code, but it has its own icon (a very simple one, but an icon nonetheless) and it can be manipulated. In the node it occupies memory, it has simsense data associated to it, hence it exists in all the relevant senses. As such it exists in both VR representation and in "machine code", meaning it does exist in a very concrete (well, virtual) sense. And as a hacker you can disguise your own Icon (using the Stealth program) as the simple virtual tree icon, effectively "hiding behind the tree" (in fact, what's happening in "machine code land", is that you are making your code look like the tree's icon's code to the IC) - yes, I know the analogy is flawed and what the hacker does is something that's the functional equivalent of an Invisibility spell, but my point about the tree (wall, desk, mosaic, etc) stands and the same reasoning can extend to any object, partition, or icon which makes up the node's virtual landscape (including unsculpted icons in basic UMS2). It's there, therefore it exists.
So basically, I disagree. It can play out exactly like a physical intrusion. Some places/nodes will have more security doing the rounds than others. Some guards/IC will be more perceptive/sensitive/ careful than others. A guard/IC may pop up at any moment at the gamemaster's whim.
Synner, the reason I was looking at it this way was for several reasons. One is that I have done a little computer programing so when I see an illogical representation of computers I twitch. The code would not be in the simsense or the VR. That would be extremely inefficient and not useful. What I'm saying is that there are reasons for specific things being rendered. It is just like the fact that there is a reason for what is being shown on your desktop. You don''t see all the processes that are going on in the background. From your stand point they don't matter to you. You are seeing what is being displayed.
From the computer's stand point it doesn't matter that mtch to it what is being displayed. It is focused on what is going through it's CPU, RAM, and page files. THat is what it considers important. What you see is not what is being processed. It is what was already processed. The same thing would occur for VR. It is just a glorified GUI with additional sensory information.
The security system doesn't need a manequin of a guard walking around to see you. It already and always knows you are there. If not then it would NEVER give you a VR display! It has to know you are there in order to be able to tell you what you see.
What I'm trying to say is that VR is a metaphor for your ease. The computer doesn't care about that and it doesn't need it to function. Now a regular user doesn't care either. The only person that WOULD care is a hacker because he is trying to subvert the system. He HAS to know what is actually going on.
Now if you are running this for a regular user then it doesn't really matter but if you are running it for a hacker then I think that you as the GM needs to understand the underlaying system and not fall for the metaphor. The advantage of doing so is that you can figure out way to reduce the necessary game mechanics with a few realizations.
Now I can see your point about having a variety of things to do causes the variation in the dice rolls but I would do it the other way around. I would provide a threshold to notice something by the system. This is the threshold that the hacker has to beat. If the system's resources are taxed then that threshold should go down.
Let's go back to the beginning of all of this. I think that without speeding up the hacking it will continue to be a drag on game play. For every edition up till now I never used them as PCs because of this. Now I think that the rules have improved to the point that we are CLOSE to being able to use them.
Now I want the hacker to have enough to do to keep them entertained as a player. I think that if we can get the system simple enough to work quickly and still varied enough to make the hacker player feel they have their own niche then we would be doing well. ONe of the major diffferences between the actions of a regular pc and a hacker is the number of rolls. A regular player rolls 2-3 times a turn. The GM rolls roughly the same depending on the circumstances.
The hacker is averaging twice that and so does the GM. THen there is the fact that the GM has to describe a totally new set of things just for one character. This by itself would be considered bad in most games as it isolates a player and drains game time. Some people suggest bringing more people into the matrix to solve the isolation problem but then you end up with 6+ rolls for each PC and possibly 6 x the number of PCs in the matrix in rolls for the GM. Then if someone doesn't join in they might as well go to a fine resturant while they wait!
I think that the key to making the matrix and hackers a part of a regular group again is to reduce the number of rolls without making the hacker player feel like their niche has been reduced.
From the computer's stand point it doesn't matter that mtch to it what is being displayed. It is focused on what is going through it's CPU, RAM, and page files. THat is what it considers important. What you see is not what is being processed. It is what was already processed. The same thing would occur for VR. It is just a glorified GUI with additional sensory information.
The security system doesn't need a manequin of a guard walking around to see you. It already and always knows you are there. If not then it would NEVER give you a VR display! It has to know you are there in order to be able to tell you what you see.
What I'm trying to say is that VR is a metaphor for your ease. The computer doesn't care about that and it doesn't need it to function. Now a regular user doesn't care either. The only person that WOULD care is a hacker because he is trying to subvert the system. He HAS to know what is actually going on.
Now if you are running this for a regular user then it doesn't really matter but if you are running it for a hacker then I think that you as the GM needs to understand the underlaying system and not fall for the metaphor. The advantage of doing so is that you can figure out way to reduce the necessary game mechanics with a few realizations.
Now I can see your point about having a variety of things to do causes the variation in the dice rolls but I would do it the other way around. I would provide a threshold to notice something by the system. This is the threshold that the hacker has to beat. If the system's resources are taxed then that threshold should go down.
Let's go back to the beginning of all of this. I think that without speeding up the hacking it will continue to be a drag on game play. For every edition up till now I never used them as PCs because of this. Now I think that the rules have improved to the point that we are CLOSE to being able to use them.
Now I want the hacker to have enough to do to keep them entertained as a player. I think that if we can get the system simple enough to work quickly and still varied enough to make the hacker player feel they have their own niche then we would be doing well. ONe of the major diffferences between the actions of a regular pc and a hacker is the number of rolls. A regular player rolls 2-3 times a turn. The GM rolls roughly the same depending on the circumstances.
The hacker is averaging twice that and so does the GM. THen there is the fact that the GM has to describe a totally new set of things just for one character. This by itself would be considered bad in most games as it isolates a player and drains game time. Some people suggest bringing more people into the matrix to solve the isolation problem but then you end up with 6+ rolls for each PC and possibly 6 x the number of PCs in the matrix in rolls for the GM. Then if someone doesn't join in they might as well go to a fine resturant while they wait!
I think that the key to making the matrix and hackers a part of a regular group again is to reduce the number of rolls without making the hacker player feel like their niche has been reduced.
| QUOTE (Synner @ Jan 31 2007, 02:46 AM) |
| In this case the representation is simply interpreting active processes and adapting them to a metaphor the human mind can comprehend - ie. it may be a metaphor but it never stops being a translation of what is happening, so in effect to the character there is no difference between what takes place in the "machine code background" and the VR representation. |
But my point is that you can not reverse it. You can not say "I hide behind the VR desk" and hope to have any effect at all. It might, but it might not. As the VR world is not real, there are many projections of a code action to a VR representation. For example attacking somebody could be represented as shooting him, or hacking him with a sword or whatever.
So there is no direct translation "VR representation" -> "code effect".
The VR world gives metaphors. But they have far less information content than any action in the real world would have.
Back to the sword example:
Seeing somebody attacking somebody else with a sword in real life means exactly that. 2 people, a sword, somebody attacking.
In VR the same scene would mean:
2 matrix constructs are fighting. The sword aspect is irrelevant. It could be a gun or whatever. Thus the Sword itself is just a metaphor. You cant take it for the full meaning of a sword.
In real life you could back away and hope not to get hit any more, because a sword is a close combat weapon. In VR this is a completely false assumption. The sword is justa metaphoer that goes only that far.
Thats why you can not hide behind a shelf in VR, more than you could hide behind a VR tennis ball. The shelf represents a certain aspect. But this aspect does certainly not include the function as a hiding space.
Futhermore, you can not try to model rules using VR, because you never know what aspect of VR is "real" code-wise and what is not. Like the sword, where the "I am attacking" aspect is real, but everything else is not.
| QUOTE |
Assuming you accept that parallel, it is highly unlikely a flesh and blood runner would get away with what you described in most games. At the very least the security guard would roll an Opposed Perception + Intuition Test against the character's Infiltration (or other relevant Stealth skill) + Agility. Which is to say the IC would go against the hacker's Stealth prog. |
So are you suggesting that scanning IC can be represented by perception rolls (your last post) at certain time intervals (the post before, where you mentioned the virus scanner like behaviour)?
That would exactly be something what I would define as patrolling IC rules.
| QUOTE |
I would also beg to differ on your analysis of the VR landscape (or anything therein) being non-existent. VR constructs always represent "something" that exists as a code construct, even if it's a simple virtual embelishment such as a virtual tree (or a wall, desk, mosaic, etc). It may represent a piece of completely gratuitous simsense code, but it has its own icon (a very simple one, but an icon nonetheless) and it can be manipulated. In the node it occupies memory, it has simsense data associated to it, hence it exists in all the relevant senses. As such it exists in both VR representation and in "machine code", meaning it does exist in a very concrete (well, virtual) sense. And as a hacker you can disguise your own Icon (using the Stealth program) as the simple virtual tree icon, effectively "hiding behind the tree" (in fact, what's happening in "machine code land", is that you are making your code look like the tree's icon's code to the IC) - yes, I know the analogy is flawed and what the hacker does is something that's the functional equivalent of an Invisibility spell, but my point about the tree (wall, desk, mosaic, etc) stands and the same reasoning can extend to any object, partition, or icon which makes up the node's virtual landscape (including unsculpted icons in basic UMS2). It's there, therefore it exists. |
Very good point. But you notice that the it is completely irrelevant what the hacker is hiding behind. He can hide behind a VR tree in the same way he could hide behind a VR tennis ball, or a VR glass window.
And because of this abstract way things behave in the matrix, I think it is completely counter intuitive to "play out patrolling IC" instrad of just rolling the dice and then giving a nice VR description if the time is there.
| QUOTE |
So basically, I disagree. It can play out exactly like a physical intrusion. Some places/nodes will have more security doing the rounds than others. Some guards/IC will be more perceptive/sensitive/ careful than others. A guard/IC may pop up at any moment at the gamemaster's whim. |
And I still think it can be cooked down to the relevant stuff, because of the reasons given above. The concept of space is just not "real" enough in VR (things like Line of Sight,. what does LOS mean in a node? are you actually percieving from a certain point in a node? Furthermore: size, opacity and so on, thats just VR parameters that have nothing to do with the code) to be used properly and everything that really has an effect can be sumarized by a dice roll. Everything that has no dice roll does not have any effect at all (except it was an action that would normally have a dice roll related to it, but the roll was skipped because the test would have been so easy, like opening a file legally, or browsing data legally).
And a final question: What stops the node designer from making just one VR room?
Actually a more interesting question is since your VR world would have size and point of view as flexible concepts why not just render the VR world as a complex trap but the sysop sees it from the ceiling looking down at 1/20 size. Basically like seeing into a rat's maze. They see all you do. Maybe they send a guard to see how you will react. They don't need a guard to know where you are but to see how guilty you act. Maybe when you turn around they move the walls around and play with you but you never get anything useful. Maybe they set up traps instead of any real data because everyone else knows to teleport in the sytem through a VR watch construct once they reach the hallway. That gets them into the useful part of the construct while the hacker just wanders around trying to blend in. Maybe the people wearing the dark blue coat are all agents and the guards are just icons with no programming.
If your hacker believes the metaphors I hope he doesn't play in a game with a GM who knows better.
If your hacker believes the metaphors I hope he doesn't play in a game with a GM who knows better.
Madness, LUNACY, INSANITY
| QUOTE (Garrowolf @ Jan 31 2007, 04:29 AM) |
| Synner, the reason I was looking at it this way was for several reasons. One is that I have done a little computer programing so when I see an illogical representation of computers I twitch. The code would not be in the simsense or the VR. That would be extremely inefficient and not useful. What I'm saying is that there are reasons for specific things being rendered. It is just like the fact that there is a reason for what is being shown on your desktop. <snip> The same thing would occur for VR. It is just a glorified GUI with additional sensory information. |
So far so good. We're pretty much on the same track (although not exactly).
| QUOTE |
| The security system doesn't need a manequin of a guard walking around to see you. It already and always knows you are there. If not then it would NEVER give you a VR display! It has to know you are there in order to be able to tell you what you see. |
This is where I think you're wrong. You are assuming:
a) That it is the "host" system producing/giving you the VR. It isn't. It is your sim-module reading/interpreting "VR tags" (sort of like html tags on a webpage) associated to the software in the node you are logged onto and displaying them to you in simsense. Your system is creating the virtuality, not the "host" system. When you use a reality filter, your sim-module simply overlays its set of defaults over the VR tags it is recieving and you're not even subject to the metaphor the host system is set to. Those VR tags are built into any sculpted system on principle, and were the clever security programmer to decide not to give an IC an Icon at all (should make it invisible huh?), your commlink would still read it as an IC program and use a UMS default icon to display it to you - assuming your commlink detected its presence in the host system you are accessing.
b) That VR is a host system-based interface rather than user-based interface. It isn't. Following on from above, every time you see something in the Matrix it means your system "detected" it, rather than the other way round. When you see an IC/guard it means your commlink has detected an IC program, not that the system it is on is showing you it has a guard. You detect it, not the other way round (yes, the system is trying to detect you but that has no bearing on what you see, only on what it sees which is another issue entirely).
c) That a security system is a cohesive whole/entity. It isn't. The SR decided that programs were to be treated as independent of one another (though interlinked), you may not like what that translates to, but that's how the basic system was concieved. It approaches the security system as several different programs running in parallel, doing different things (firewall, IC, virus scanner, spam filter, encryption, etc). Each such program functions independently (each has its own scanning cycle, search criteria, etc as it were). Each is an autonomous entity - there are good reasons for not having full integration. An appropriate parallel is how today your Windows OS or Linux needs Norton/McAfee/Panda/whatever to actually find the virus or a Firewall plug in to keep out undesireables. It could potentially be set to turn off if something unauthorized alters the registry, but by itself its not going to do anything against that something. Normally it isn't even aware what that something is or what it's actually doing. It just sits there.
d) That the "system" is omnipotent and proactive. It isn't. It is neither omnipotent, self-aware, or capable of decisions. It is reactive at best. Following on from above, the node might be "aware" (it registers activity at least) it is being used, and whether or not the user is legitimately logged on, but that's as far as it goes - the node is basically an OS and just sits there registering activity in its logs (unless of course the owners have programmed it to not send IC but turn itself off at the first sign of trouble). When something like this is flagged by the system it activates a specific program/IC and then individually sent to verify the inconsistency/suspicious activity (ie. sent out on patrol ). If some inconsistency shows using out of place/suspicious the appropriate program/IC is activated to verify and deal with the problem (possibly alerting other countermeasures).
e) That security hacker using the security system is instantly and permanently aware of everything that happens in the node. He isn't. He is only human and in SR there's no "reading the code" like in the Matrix. He's just as limited in his perception (by his own simmodule and the amount of sensory information the human mind can process and interpret) as the hacker who is hacking in (ie. looking from a top down perspective doesn't mean he'll see everything). Wha the does have going for him is any legitimate Agents and IC that are helping him look for intruders.
| QUOTE |
| What I'm trying to say is that VR is a metaphor for your ease. The computer doesn't care about that and it doesn't need it to function. Now a regular user doesn't care either. The only person that WOULD care is a hacker because he is trying to subvert the system. He HAS to know what is actually going on. |
We disagree. Regular users will use VR if it suits them, their professions or their interests. It is no longer the be all and end all of interfaces but its hasn't been put aside. Regular users stand to gain very much by using VR in certain contexts. You might not find an office pool of secretaries slumped back in their chairs anymore, but biochemists will be working in VR environments all the time. Regular security guards won't have Wired 2 but VR means you don't have to be a rigger to get more out of a security system.
Hackers use AR and VR as it suits them, just like everyone else. VR immersion is better in some circumstances (especially if you're a normal joe hacking from your mom's basement and don't have any intention of getting reflex enhancements).
| QUOTE |
| Now if you are running this for a regular user then it doesn't really matter but if you are running it for a hacker then I think that you as the GM needs to understand the underlaying system and not fall for the metaphor. The advantage of doing so is that you can figure out way to reduce the necessary game mechanics with a few realizations. |
As I mention above the metaphor is largely irrelevant - so much so that you can modify your system to have your metaphor apply all the time. Every hacker knows that.
| QUOTE |
| Now I can see your point about having a variety of things to do causes the variation in the dice rolls but I would do it the other way around. I would provide a threshold to notice something by the system. This is the threshold that the hacker has to beat. If the system's resources are taxed then that threshold should go down. |
I'd agree with this solution if we were talking about a quick resolution system (which I expect there will be something of the kind in Unwired), or if the system didn't want all programs working on a host treated separately. That is not the case.
| QUOTE |
| Let's go back to the beginning of all of this. I think that without speeding up the hacking it will continue to be a drag on game play. For every edition up till now I never used them as PCs because of this. Now I think that the rules have improved to the point that we are CLOSE to being able to use them. Now I want the hacker to have enough to do to keep them entertained as a player. I think that if we can get the system simple enough to work quickly and still varied enough to make the hacker player feel they have their own niche then we would be doing well. ONe of the major diffferences between the actions of a regular pc and a hacker is the number of rolls. A regular player rolls 2-3 times a turn. The GM rolls roughly the same depending on the circumstances. The hacker is averaging twice that and so does the GM. THen there is the fact that the GM has to describe a totally new set of things just for one character. This by itself would be considered bad in most games as it isolates a player and drains game time. Some people suggest bringing more people into the matrix to solve the isolation problem but then you end up with 6+ rolls for each PC and possibly 6 x the number of PCs in the matrix in rolls for the GM. Then if someone doesn't join in they might as well go to a fine resturant while they wait! |
Again, I disagree. I've been playing SR4 for more than two years now and we've never felt it slows play significantly. Or maybe I should clarify: It only slows play down any more than a magician performing an astral recon or a rigger remote rigging a drone, which to me means it isn't a problem. Then again I don't demand rolls for every single action (use of a program) or for every single option.
I'll get Serbitar's stuff a little later.[I]
| QUOTE (Synner) | ||
So far so good. We're pretty much on the same track (although not exactly). |
I still think you're both limiting yourselves a great deal with your assumptions that VR and AR are only "mere" GUI interfaces, independant of the as-yet-undefined operating system underneath - not of the host, but of the Matrix infrastructure itself. If the Matrix was more like, say a server, then both the hacker and the sysop and the host would all have to reside in the Matrix and follow the laws of its operating system. There wouldn't be much need for distinctions between pemission rights of hackers vs systems, but rather some relatively-believable reason of why those decisions were made in the first place when the Matrix was established.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| c) That a security system is a cohesive whole/entity. It isn't. The SR decided that programs were to be treated as independent of one another (though interlinked), you may not like what that translates to, but that's how the basic system was concieved. It approaches the security system as several different programs running in parallel, doing different things (firewall, IC, virus scanner, spam filter, encryption, etc). Each such program functions independently (each has its own scanning cycle, search criteria, etc as it were). Each is an autonomous entity - there are good reasons for not having full integration. An appropriate parallel is how today your Windows OS or Linux needs Norton/McAfee/Panda/whatever to actually find the virus or a Firewall plug in to keep out undesireables. |
A plug-in, by definition, is not a seperate program but rather an augmentation to enhance the abilities of a larger program. In this case, adding a firewall plugin to an OS means that the OS is managing that firewall and that it can draw on OS resources, and perhaps more importantly, OS access-rights and whatever else the OS can do that other programs can't.
There is a *huge* push to fully integrated secure operating systems and even windows is feeling the push of consumer demand in this area. How many different distributions does Linux have? These distributions exist for two important differences: style and integrated features. Firewalls are built right into the kernel of Linux operating systems with no need to draw on an outside program. The Unix environment itself manages protections and rights so that no program can draw resources from another unless they belong to the same "package". If the Linux distribution isn't secure enough for your needs, your better off getting another one. This tendency should improve over the next 60 years or so.
If, on the other hand, you believe that in the next 60 years, that some version of Windows has become the supreme universal operating system of the entire world... well, that would explain a lot.
---
Independant Point: From a Game Design perspective, does any of it matter? A player isn't trying to defeat a program, he's trying to hack into a system and (often) steal their files. What's important is how hard that task is to do and what the results are. The hacking system should center on hackers and systems, rather than an intense cybercombat system against a certain program that's more or less irrelevent to the player. If a user adds more firewalls to his system, he isn't necessarily putting a series of tiered tasks before an intruder, so much as making the system as a whole harder to get into - that's his goal. What we should be testing therefore, is the hacker's goal (getting into the system and making adjustments and accessing critical files) vs the administrator's goals (keeping hackers out, protecting all files, recieving warning of hacking attempts). Focussing on the micro-management of each component involved in this goal is like having rolls for a street sam to draw his gun or a mage to search for the spirit he wants to summon.
| QUOTE |
| d) That the "system" is omnipotent and proactive. It isn't. It is neither omnipotent, self-aware, or capable of decisions. It is reactive at best. |
I think this supports Garrowolf's argument. If its not active, it's not self-aware, it's not making decisions. It shouldn't "send ice". It shouldn't roll dice. It makes sense to have a constant threshold, and the more secure you make the system the higher this threshold is. It's not actively making decisions. It's not being proactive. It's just damn difficult to hack because there are so many upgrades to the system.
I wonder how "played out like guards" scanning IC should be treated when doing AR hacking.
Any ideas anyone?
Any ideas anyone?
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| I wonder how "played out like guards" scanning IC should be treated when doing AR hacking. Any ideas anyone? |
In the SR4 artwork, the hacker's AR shows two circles with a line connecting them. I presume this is the graphic representation of Exploit connecting from one node to another node.
A "security guard" could represent a concentration of red dots within that circle. As you hack in, the line gets connected to another circle. As you do so, the red dots concentrate on that circle... the more dots concentrate on that area, the more likely you are to be caught.
Alternatively or in addition, you could have some kind of general awareness rating (as a bar graph on the side of the display) showing the general level of verification requests that are being made. The more there are, the more suspicious the system is of you.
How to represent the Stealth system is a little harder, but for some reason we treat hackers as a "system" rather than a "collection of programs" so we can just assume that the little red dots move slower toward you if you have a high stealth rating. Alterntively, if all OSes work the way Synner describes, you could have little blue dots of your own (representing your stealth programs) flooding the node and fighting the little red dots (or just attracting them elsewhere).
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| Any ideas anyone? |
GitS?
@cetiah
Now I mean, how do you play out the "run and hide"-stuff that "played out like guards IC" needs in AR? We are talking about VR actions to hide from guards. What do you do in AR? Except from rolling dice. How do ypu play out the hiding from Guards?
If there are no patrolling IC rules, because it should be played out in VR, what do you do in AR?
@Rotbart
I think I forgot everything in the movie. No idea what you mean.
Now I mean, how do you play out the "run and hide"-stuff that "played out like guards IC" needs in AR? We are talking about VR actions to hide from guards. What do you do in AR? Except from rolling dice. How do ypu play out the hiding from Guards?
If there are no patrolling IC rules, because it should be played out in VR, what do you do in AR?
@Rotbart
I think I forgot everything in the movie. No idea what you mean.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| I think I forgot everything in the movie. |
The movie? There's already a second one... and two Seasons worth of Episodes, plus a 'concluding' movie.
Whatever, Ive seen some stand alone complex series, but I still dont know what you are talking about.
Why are you always trying to not contribute to the topic, but still post something?
Posting phrases doesnt help anyone.
Why are you always trying to not contribute to the topic, but still post something?
Posting phrases doesnt help anyone.
I think Ghost In the Shell is a contribution.
| QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Jan 31 2007, 06:27 PM) |
| I think Ghost In the Shell is a contribution. |
Ohhhh.... Ghost in the Shell.
Geez.
A google search of GitS brought up something completely different.
Wasn't Ghost in the Shell virtual reality, though? I don't remember.
You were searching for graphic interface and iconography references, which there are quite some within the setting of GitS.
PS: Are you still being fed?
PS: Are you still being fed?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.