Since the Unwired Questions thread is eternally locked into a discussion about program degradation, I'm just moving this question out to its own thread. Sorry to anyone this annoys.


Silly question I just ran into in my first really close readthrough (as opposed to the four skim reads I've done before it):

Do artificial response decreases limit System and thereby program ratings? Specifically, the response halving (which it doesn't say to round up or down, but that's another issue) from geostationary satlinks and the effect of a response-targetted Nuke program.

Initially, it seems stupid to even ask, but we know from FAQ that response decrease from slowdown of running too many progs doesn't drop system to avoid the death spiral effect.

Nuke's description gives targets of Response or System/Pilot and only when you freeze up both do you lock someone up, which gives me the impression that reducing Response doesn't reduce System as well (otherwise why ever target System?)

Given those two things, I'm almost wondering if _any_ artificial response degradation can affect what programs you can run. It seems more like programs are tied to the response hardware, not the running processing power remaining. In other words, hacking through a geostationary satlink makes your initiative slower and makes you more prone to getting hit, but you can still run your stealth 6 program despite the lag.

Thoughts?

I take it to mean that your System is affected by Proxies and Satellites. But on the other hand I am also convinced that Optimization does work the way it sounds like it works in which case you only need to spend an extra 300 nuyen per program to run them all at full rating. (except Hacking programs which have to be upgraded with Optimization after Char Gen).

i personally would assume that response loss from satellite relays and anonymizing servers would not affect programs. it's a delay in getting information (ie lag), not an actual loss of processing power.

not too sure about nuke though...

Response is decreased by running more programs than your system attribute "allows" safely, but not the other way round. Of course your comlink will be rather slow when running dozens of programs AND beeing slowed down artificially, but I don't see why the System value should be affected... As far as I remember it would also be allowed to have a Response 6, System 1 comlink, wouldn't it?

This is how I think it rules...

1. System is limited Max Response for purposes of determining number of programs you can run

2. System is limited to Current Response for purposes of determining the rating of programs you can run

Rule 1 is to prevent the death spiral of response decreasing, so system decreases and number of programs being able to run decreases, resulting in response decreasing...

Otherwise for everything else Apply rule 2.

Note: You can run higher systems then response (they are just limited to Max Response)
You can run higher programs than system or response (they're rating is just limited to System)

Uh...you could have a Response 6, system 1 link, but since program rating is limited by System, you couldn't run higher than rating 1 programs on it. But you'd run them really fast at least!

Sounds like my dad's computer... He has a great computer... but uses it only to pay bills, and browse online.

While I'm trying to get everything I can (or more) out of my computer, thats not nearly is good.

Wait, so in your way of doing it, the number of programs you can run stays at 5 for a Response 5, System 5 system, but the effective program rating spirals down? So if you have a Response 5, System 5 system, you can run four rating 5 programs, but as soon as you hit five programs (the processor limit), they become five rating 4 programs. If you go to ten programs, it becomes ten rating 3, fifteen rating 2, twenty rating 1?

I guess that makes sense in one interpretation, but it explicitly says in the FAQ that System does not lower due to response degradation from processor limit. Not that the processor limit stays the same while the effective system/program rating drops.

I run it this way, because program load is an issue for hackers, and being able to run unlimited programs for -5 to Initiative (which is only -1 when they are running boosted hot sim VR) doesn't seem like enough. I prefer the hackers only having System x 2 programs available (suffering only -1 response) and even then cutting back if they want to do some high scale hacking with the Rating 6.

I have ruled though you can open as many programs as you want during a pass, they just aren't available for use until the next pass. (Not a fan of the Complex action to start up the program)

Ah yeah, that would make it a bit less painful. I was envisioning getting jumped by Black IC and being like "Wait, wait! it'll only take me three more passes to get what I need up! Don't kill me yet!"

I miss the days of SR3 when one of the cybercombat options you could do was to try to break off and evade detection, which gave you a few rounds breathing room if you needed to swap things in and out to load up for combat.

Anyways, be aware that it's a -X to initiative _and_ a -X to resisting attack progs since it's a cybercombat + attack versus response + firewall. Given how hard things can hit still with a few net hits, I consider those two things enough of a trade off without dropping all the program ratings every degradation.

But then, the hacker in my group has had some nasty cybercombats and so is twitchy about letting his response drop. Which is why he did a literal dance of joy at the Ergonomic option.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this one? So far it seems that most people think that artificial response degradation only slows down your initiative and makes you easier to hit, but doesn't change your System rating and lower programs, but one has disagreed.

P.S. Found two more Response degradations in unwired. Using proxy servers to make you harder to track gives a -1 response per server. One of the software bugs, I think memory allocation error, causes a -1 response each time it hits.

(I don't have Unwired so working from hearsay and RL knowledge)

Here's my interpretation: if the degradation only applies to a single connection the hacker has open (say a satellite link through two proxies to Mitsuhama) but not all of them (the wifi connection to the combat drone sitting next to him as a bodyguard) it has no impact on your System Rating or Programs. If it affects your Comm itself (like the memory allocation bug from your crappy Command program), then everything is impacted.

Not sure about the NUKE program because I don't know if it degrades the network connection or is an attack on the user's Persona/Comm.

I like that interpretation, as long as I'm reading it correctly. If its run through connection its just response. If its actually due to something on your commlink everything is affected.

I kind of like it too. The way it is described, I'd say the Nuke program tries to flood the hardware since any response degradation stays until the system is rebooted.

The problem is, that makes Nuke kind of stupid. You make a nuke attack and each damage done by it takes one from either response or system. Only when you freeze both is the system completely locked up until reboot. But if you take out response first, it takes out System with it using this interpretation of rules, leaving the hacker to attack a 0 effective System after the Response has already been dropped to 0 (thus slowing it to a crawl anyways).

Also, does your interpretation follow Nightwalker's that loading more programs than System lowers the ratings of the programs you can run since that's not really a 'connection' thing, but something at the persona/hardware level? In other words, load 7 rating 6 programs on a response/system 6 and they drop to rating 5 (though the processor limit doesn't change to avoid death spiral, so you can load up to another 6 before further degradation)

I'd need to see the text on Nuke to see if there's a way for it to make sense.

And yeah, running large numbers of programs would fall in the "comm affliction" category rather the "connection affliction."