Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Agent and AI question
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
ShadowWalker
When an Agent or AI is running with a node is it limited by the System of said node?
It says they both count for the Processor Limit, but I can't see anywhere in the book
where it says their rating is limited or not limited by the System.
example: a Rating 4 AI is in (running within) a node that is rating 3. Does it's rating get decreased to 3?
What about Agents under the same circumstances? As far as I can tell the programs they run would.
Hamsnibit
Response caps system rating which caps program rating.
AIs are handled as programs in this matter.

If the AI runs on a lower node then yes, it temporarily decreases in rating as long as the AI resides in the node.
Udoshi
Are you sure about that? I don't think the AI rating rules say anything about being lowered by system, given that they are comprised of mental stats and not hardware limitations.
Hamsnibit
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Oct 27 2011, 07:06 AM) *
Are you sure about that? I don't think the AI rating rules say anything about being lowered by system, given that they are comprised of mental stats and not hardware limitations.


Ah yes you are right, i looked it up again in runners companion p.89.

the rating of an AI derives from its rating which is the average of all four mental attributes.
Edge was the thing which is capped by the rating and nothing else. Therefore an AI in a node can always be r6 and the loaded (not the inherent) programs would not decrease with the node since the AI is a System in itself and the loaded programs run on the AI if i read the crunch correctly.

This should work for PC and NPC AIs as they are treated the same way in this matter.
ShadowWalker
I figured if an AI affected the response, it's considered a running program, same with an agent. So why wouldn't they be limited by the hardware it's running on?
You run something on different machines functionality can degrade because the hardware it's running on is limiting what it can do. The CPU/VRU might not support some functions the program wants to use and so some functionality needs to be dropped in order to function within the system. I don't see anything in the rules either for agents or for AI's that says their rating/attributes are downgraded based on the system. But at least for me logically if they have an affect on the system load one would think they would also be limited by the system's ability to support them.
Udoshi
Keep in mind that AI's Inherent Programs also have the Optimization and Ergonomic options built into them. I might be mistaken, but I'm not sure it says how much optimization(i think 6 is the max on that option anyway). But basically they don't care about System when using inherents due to that.

And since an AI rolls Skill+Program to do stuff on the matrix, its ai rating never really matters.
ShadowWalker
QUOTE (Udoshi @ Oct 27 2011, 07:58 PM) *
Keep in mind that AI's Inherent Programs also have the Optimization and Ergonomic options built into them. I might be mistaken, but I'm not sure it says how much optimization(i think 6 is the max on that option anyway). But basically they don't care about System when using inherents due to that.

And since an AI rolls Skill+Program to do stuff on the matrix, its ai rating never really matters.

It doesn't actual give a rating on the optimization, it just says that the max rating for the inherent program is double the AI's System attribute.
And yes, it's inherent programs don't affect the node degradation but the core AI does, as do any normal programs it runs. Plus a Node can only have up to it's System rating in Optimized programs running. Above that even optimized programs start to affect it.
Neraph
Why is the AI running from node to node? When you factor in that a R6 AI that makes a R3 node its home node can up the Response and System by 3 (making them 6) then it doesn't seem like much of a problem in the first place. An AI does not actually have to leave its node to hack into another system, so the point is moot in my opinion.

And also: why is the AI hacking? All AIs should have Pilot Origins and have their Home Nodes be drones anyways.
ShadowWalker
QUOTE (Neraph @ Oct 29 2011, 04:22 PM) *
Why is the AI running from node to node? When you factor in that a R6 AI that makes a R3 node its home node can up the Response and System by 3 (making them 6) then it doesn't seem like much of a problem in the first place. An AI does not actually have to leave its node to hack into another system, so the point is moot in my opinion.

And also: why is the AI hacking? All AIs should have Pilot Origins and have their Home Nodes be drones anyways.

AI's can in fact be chased from their node, because it's about to be physically destroyed, or something similar.
There are reasons. So it's not moot, and it's not just AIs this could also affect Agents. Both should in some way be affected by the nodes hardware ratings.
Aerospider
QUOTE (Neraph @ Oct 29 2011, 09:22 PM) *
Why is the AI running from node to node?

If the AI is needed behind wireless shielding or in a dead zone there's usually no other option.

QUOTE (Neraph @ Oct 29 2011, 09:22 PM) *
And also: why is the AI hacking? All AIs should have Pilot Origins and have their Home Nodes be drones anyways.

It's widely viewed that the comparative vulnerability of a drone makes it an unsuitable choice for a home node.
Udoshi
QUOTE (Aerospider @ Oct 31 2011, 01:44 PM) *
It's widely viewed that the comparative vulnerability of a drone makes it an unsuitable choice for a home node.



That, and the fact that AI's can form connections to other nodes without physically being on them, like any other matrix user, means remote decking through a series of relays(your team) is hardly a bad choice.

Besides, the major advantage of piloting origin isn't the ability to have your home node be a drone. Its to run autosofts.
Neraph
True, but drones are hardly vulnerable. It's easy to get a Renraku Manservant to 15/15 armor (which technically functions as Hardened Armor), and that's without taking a Manservant for a ride in a Horseman of the Apocalypse.

But my main thing is what Udoshi pointed out: AIs do not need to actually move from node to node - they can make connections to other nodes like any other user. Combine that with a Satellite Link running R6 ECCM and nothing in the game can jam your signal.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ Nov 1 2011, 10:13 AM) *
True, but drones are hardly vulnerable. It's easy to get a Renraku Manservant to 15/15 armor (which technically functions as Hardened Armor), and that's without taking a Manservant for a ride in a Horseman of the Apocalypse.

But my main thing is what Udoshi pointed out: AIs do not need to actually move from node to node - they can make connections to other nodes like any other user. Combine that with a Satellite Link running R6 ECCM and nothing in the game can jam your signal.


Not necessarily True. Jamming-on-the Fly can do it, as it is an opposed test (EW+Signal vs. EW+Signal with ECCM acting as positive modifier to the pool). And can be surprisingly effective.
Udoshi
Jamming on the Fly is what makes jammers really good. Especially because jammers themselves can go to rating 10. Still, its dissappointing the only rules for jamming in the main book were the 'turn it on and hope their signal is low enough to autojam'.

Still, AI's are really hard to jam, as they resist with Electronic Warfare + Signal(boosted because of AI) + Eccm(you could take this as an Inherent if you really wanted), and the jammer only rolls EW+Signal. 3 things in a dice pool generally top out 2.

The thing I particularly like about Jamming on the Fly is that it opens up the possibility to jam with drone Sensors, because they have Signal. Its not very useful, but provides a very roundabout(in the rule sense) way of shutting down odd sensor types, like ultrasound, if you don't have your usual tools.
ShadowWalker
If an AI has ECCM as an inherent program, then it could potentially get ECCM up to 14. Rating 7 AI mind you, which would be extremly expensive on the karma.
The stupid way they have AIs Inherent programs setup to start with, being limited to your rating at creation. With no option to buy more means who would want to start without being rating 6.
Personally I think allowing them to buy a new inherent program at a cost of 6 karma seems reasonable, as long as they have a rating greater than the total number of inherent programs.
6 coming from 2 for the program and 2 for each program option.

Back to the original question. If for whatever reason an AI, Agent or IC, ends up in a node that has a system rating less than their own rating does their rating and attributes associated with that rating decrease?
A System program can't have a rating greater than the response. Matrix programs can't have a rating greater than the System. (SR4A pg 222)
Agents count towards processor limit (SR4A pg 234)

Something interesting I just found on pg 234 related to agents and I would expect IC:
QUOTE
Agents use the Response attribute of the node on which they are running; this means that the attributes of an agent operating independently may vary as it moves from node to node.

Just above that paragraph is stated that the Pilot attribute acts as the Agents System rating. Sounds like Agents get dropped to the Response of the node they are running in.

For AIs I came across the following in UW pg 166
QUOTE
Like agents, they use the Response and Signal attributes of whatever node in which they happen to be. Their Firewall and System attributes are based on their rating.


So they also use Response from the node, which only makes sense. Other than saying, "Like agents", there is no comment about their attributes changing. I Still think it would since System can't be higher than the Response.
Neraph
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 1 2011, 12:15 PM) *
Not necessarily True. Jamming-on-the Fly can do it, as it is an opposed test (EW+Signal vs. EW+Signal with ECCM acting as positive modifier to the pool). And can be surprisingly effective.

Granted, but the likelihood of a EW + Signal beating EW + 14 is slim.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ Nov 3 2011, 11:56 PM) *
Granted, but the likelihood of a EW + Signal beating EW + 14 is slim.


Depends upon who you are... I would not make that bet against Nations or High Level Megacorps.
Though I do think that Jamming should reduce rating, rather than being binary. *shrug*
ShadowWalker
yes yes yes, but what are your thoughts on an AI's, Agent's or IC's Rating and/or System, or any of the other attributes being affected by Response?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (ShadowWalker @ Nov 5 2011, 11:11 AM) *
yes yes yes, but what are your thoughts on an AI's, Agent's or IC's Rating and/or System, or any of the other attributes being affected by Response?


IC, Agents's and AI's are all have their stats restricted by those of the Node they are On. Their ratings do not actually change, but they can only operate at the capacity of the node that they are currently occupying.

Response limits System, as it always has...
System limits program ratings...
Neraph
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 5 2011, 12:30 PM) *
IC, Agents's and AI's are all have their stats restricted by those of the Node they are On. Their ratings do not actually change, but they can only operate at the capacity of the node that they are currently occupying.

Response limits System, as it always has...
System limits program ratings...

Exactly, which is why I made my point. The AI does not need to actually move into another node to hack it. You can remain in your Home Node and create an icon in the other nodes and hack just fine.

Also, on Drone Bodies: I've mentioned before that you do not need to actually have an awsome drone, or even a single drone for that matter. My current favorite is ten Kanmushi with Ruthenium Polymers, Signal Masking, and a Satellite Link all clustered together serving as your home node. Then you take these 10 really difficult to detect drones and spread them out in a web pattern over the city. All 10 of these drones need to be destroyed at the exact same time in order to kill the AI. Oh, and you're not limited to just using 10 - with how cheap these are you can readily afford many of them.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ Nov 5 2011, 10:43 AM) *
Exactly, which is why I made my point. The AI does not need to actually move into another node to hack it. You can remain in your Home Node and create an icon in the other nodes and hack just fine.

Also, on Drone Bodies: I've mentioned before that you do not need to actually have an awsome drone, or even a single drone for that matter. My current favorite is ten Kanmushi with Ruthenium Polymers, Signal Masking, and a Satellite Link all clustered together serving as your home node. Then you take these 10 really difficult to detect drones and spread them out in a web pattern over the city. All 10 of these drones need to be destroyed at the exact same time in order to kill the AI. Oh, and you're not limited to just using 10 - with how cheap these are you can readily afford many of them.



See, I would not allow that collection of Drones to be a clustered node, however. Just me, I guess. It is RAW, I think, to allow disaprate, dislocated, pieces to be linked as such, but I would never allow that. smile.gif
Neraph
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 5 2011, 12:17 PM) *
See, I would not allow that collection of Drones to be a clustered node, however. Just me, I guess. It is RAW, I think, to allow disaprate, dislocated, pieces to be linked as such, but I would never allow that. smile.gif

Simply by GM fiat do most of the things I propose not work. It is perfectly legal and the logical conclusion for an AI that wishes to survive.
ShadowWalker
The thing is a cluster although it may look like a single node it isn't. I wouldn't allow a cluster of individual nodes be a home node.
I would however allow a home node be part of a cluster. I don't think it's RAW that a cluster be allowed as a home node.
Just the description of how you calculate the attributes makes it sound too much like something that couldn't be a home node.
It's system and firewall are the lowest system and firewall for the devices used, it's response is the average of all responses.
No mention of signal, but I'm thinking highest would be okay, although maybe highest +1 depending on how many devices make up
the cluster.
Plus what happens to the AI if the Clustering is broken up. It's home no longer exists, and if the AI was in the cluster at the time of the
nodes destruction it's death. Which could be as simple as the cluster being unclustered.
Yerameyahu
Indeed. Any application of the clustering rules is a mess, even without getting AI into it. The drones are a particularly good example.
Tech_Rat
For agents and IC, this is how it works. They get loaded on to the system. AI's are more like your Decker/Hacker or Technomancer. They choose their home node[usually, if not always, with wicked stats], and proxy out, then hack. They are still confined to the upper limit of their system[though they do optimize the hardware], but that doesn't mean they are limited to the system they're hacking.


Agents, IC, etc: Limited by current node

Hackers/Deckers: Limited by their hardware

Technomancers/AI's/Sprites: Limited by Living Persona/Resonance rating/home node.

Home node is not necessarily the node they are currently on.

I should really go to bed. Thoughts are losing cohesiveness...
Neraph
QUOTE (ShadowWalker @ Nov 5 2011, 11:55 PM) *
The thing is a cluster although it may look like a single node it isn't. I wouldn't allow a cluster of individual nodes be a home node.
I would however allow a home node be part of a cluster. I don't think it's RAW that a cluster be allowed as a home node.
Just the description of how you calculate the attributes makes it sound too much like something that couldn't be a home node.
It's system and firewall are the lowest system and firewall for the devices used, it's response is the average of all responses.
No mention of signal, but I'm thinking highest would be okay, although maybe highest +1 depending on how many devices make up
the cluster.
Plus what happens to the AI if the Clustering is broken up. It's home no longer exists, and if the AI was in the cluster at the time of the
nodes destruction it's death. Which could be as simple as the cluster being unclustered.

Unless I'm mistaken, a clustered node is a node, and nodes can be made into home nodes. A = B = C here. If all the drones have identical stats, the only thing different is a net program limit increase.
Yerameyahu
Except it makes no sense. The rules are broken, and when something is broken, we avoid it. smile.gif
Neraph
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 5 2011, 11:52 PM) *
Except it makes no sense. The rules are broken, and when something is broken, we avoid it. smile.gif

How is that broken? A clustered node is a node, and AIs can make nodes their home node with a Test. I don't see anything broken about that. And hell, how is that broken but a full-cyberlimb cyberzombie with all his capacity taken up by commlinks that are clustered together ok? (and that's not even my idea - I got it from DS here)
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ Nov 6 2011, 07:19 AM) *
How is that broken? A clustered node is a node, and AIs can make nodes their home node with a Test. I don't see anything broken about that. And hell, how is that broken but a full-cyberlimb cyberzombie with all his capacity taken up by commlinks that are clustered together ok? (and that's not even my idea - I got it from DS here)


As long as you can acknowledge that if a single point in the cluster is destroyed, the entire Cluster comes apart, and is destroyed. At that point, your AI is also destroyed. There can be no other option if you are using the Clustering rules. And I am fairly sure, from your originating post on the subject, that you disagree with that. Unfortunately, that is how it should work, if you are using clustering rules.

No worries, though. At least at our table, Clustering only exists for the truly desperate. Want something really good, you get a Nexus.

And remember, not everything you get from DS is good rules useage... smile.gif
Neraph
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Nov 6 2011, 08:42 AM) *
As long as you can acknowledge that if a single point in the cluster is destroyed, the entire Cluster comes apart, and is destroyed. At that point, your AI is also destroyed. There can be no other option if you are using the Clustering rules. And I am fairly sure, from your originating post on the subject, that you disagree with that. Unfortunately, that is how it should work, if you are using clustering rules.

No worries, though. At least at our table, Clustering only exists for the truly desperate. Want something really good, you get a Nexus.

Destroying one part in no way comprimizes the rest of the cluster; show me in the rules where it says that. You cannot arbitrarily state something outside the rules and then say that is the only way the rules work. The only option is actually to play by the rules, which is exactly what I have described (outside of house rules).

Also, clustering is better than a Nexus because you can get the same or more programs being able to run on the same node stats that you can actually carry.
Yerameyahu
Except that example is *also* not okay, Neraph. smile.gif The problem is that your 'node' suddenly exists at multiple physical locations. Your 'node' has multiple different Signal ratings. If they're drones, your 'node' can potentially control multiple drones with a single Pilot, or run multiple Pilots (both impossible).

… And look, you're already explaining away the only tradeoffs. Sigh. When the rules are (crappily) vague, you always assume the truth that helps you.
Neraph
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 6 2011, 08:57 AM) *
Except that example is *also* not okay, Neraph. smile.gif The problem is that your 'node' suddenly exists at multiple physical locations. Your 'node' has multiple different Signal ratings. If they're drones, your 'node' can potentially control multiple drones with a single Pilot, or run multiple Pilots (both impossible).

… And look, you're already explaining away the only tradeoffs. Sigh. When the rules are (crappily) vague, you always assume the truth that helps you.

Any clustered node exists in multiple locations, so that's a straw man. The node does not have multiple hardware/software ratings because they are all the exact same drone. If you have many drones on one subscription you can remote control rig them with one Command program, so I fail to see what the problem is with running a clustered drone node with one single Pilot, and that besides I didn't even suggest that in the first place. In addition, any node, drone, or vehicle can have multiple pilots running - it's not impossible it's redundant.

The rules are not "crappily vague," you and TJ are simply not reading them and applying them to the rest of the game.
Yerameyahu
No, that's *the point*. Clustering with nodes that aren't co-located is an unusable mess. And there's no requirement that you use the same drones, that's just what you happened to do in your example. Command is inherently abstract and works with any group of Commandable devices; an unrelated exception.

I didn't even mention the massive 'something for nothing' abuse.

It *is* impossible. Pilot is the System. You get one. Or are you going with "it doesn't say I can't" again?

You're partly right: I'm not applying the broken rules to the game and reaping the broken results.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Neraph @ Nov 6 2011, 07:47 AM) *
Destroying one part in no way comprimizes the rest of the cluster; show me in the rules where it says that. You cannot arbitrarily state something outside the rules and then say that is the only way the rules work. The only option is actually to play by the rules, which is exactly what I have described (outside of house rules).

Also, clustering is better than a Nexus because you can get the same or more programs being able to run on the same node stats that you can actually carry.


See, I disagree. If a part of something breaks, the whole breaks until you reconfigure. But for the AI, that is too late.
I also disagree about clustering being BETTER than a Nexus. I have absolutely no problem running my 28 programs on the Comlink I use for my Cyberlogician. I hardly even notice any degradation at all (-3 whole Response, and corresponding -3 Initiative; Dang, now I only have an Initiative of 18, how sad). You are talking about raping the rules, which I disagree with. A cluster of RFID's will NEVER be better than a Nexus, EVER. Just saying.

Clustering is something you do in a pinch, when nothng else better is available. Unfortunately for you, even a Metalink is better than a cluster of toasters.

I know that you think you are being clever and innovative by doing so, but it is blatantly obvious that all you are doing is looking to gain as much power, through as many loopholes in the rules, as you can. I tend to find this disagreeable for actual game palying.

No worries, though. I have come to truly enjoy your forays into extreme rules rapeage(?). Keep up the good work. They are always a fun read. smile.gif
Yerameyahu
Rapine, I think, but ew.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 6 2011, 10:42 AM) *
Rapine, I think, but ew.


Heh... was not sure. Thanks, Yerameyahu.
Yerameyahu
Haha, you're so serious. smile.gif The noun form of sexual assault is just 'rape', but either way, yuck. I just don't think 'rapine' (violent theft) gets enough modern use… and I guess you could call munchkinry 'violent theft' of the rules.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Nov 6 2011, 01:16 PM) *
Haha, you're so serious. smile.gif The noun form of sexual assault is just 'rape', but either way, yuck. I just don't think 'rapine' (violent theft) gets enough modern use… and I guess you could call munchkinry 'violent theft' of the rules.


There is that... smile.gif
ShadowWalker
QUOTE
For this purpose, two or more nodes can be linked together to work as one super-node or cluster with greater processing power. To do this, all the nodes are linked together and placed into cluster mode, requiring a Computer + Logic (2) Test.


To me that is vague, is the word "linked" to mean they are physically linked or linked over wireless?
Unless that wireless connection is going at the speed of light there is no way that multiple devices "linked" together wirelessly would work better than a singular device.
I would also think that if making a cluster using wireless is possible it would require all nodes to be within mutual range at all times.
If anyone was to get admin access to the clustered node(s) it would only take a Computer + Logic (2) test to take all nodes out of the cluster and then poof no more home node.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012