Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 08:55:01 2002

Message no. 1 OK, this is my problem, IC rated at 9 or 10 is pretty common on high
security systems, someone has programmed that IC, I've seen rating 20 IC,
again someone has programmed that. Programming however limits you to writing
programs which have a maximum rating equal to your computer(programming)
skill...
So is there actually a limit to which you can build a skill? There isn't one
in the base rules TMK but the idea of samurai running round with all of
their Karma going into their favourite Ingram smartgun and having to use a
bucket to throw their dice scares me a little.
Any thoughts?

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Grim Shear)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 10:00:01 2002

Message no. 2 >"Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com> said:
>OK, this is my problem, IC rated at 9 or 10 is pretty common on high
>security systems, someone has programmed that IC, I've seen rating 20 IC,
>again someone has programmed that. Programming however limits you to
>writing programs which have a maximum rating equal to your
>computer(programming) skill...
>So is there actually a limit to which you can build a skill? There isn't
>one in the base rules TMK but the idea of samurai running round with all of
>their Karma going into their favourite Ingram smartgun and having to use a
>bucket to throw their dice scares me a little.
>Any thoughts?

I think that's rather the point. People with enough experience/practice tend
to get very good at things. Take the CC martial arts rules for example.

In order to actually master each form, the caracter must possess all nine
maneuvers. The book says you _must_ take a meneuver for every two levels of
skill you obtain, but doesn't limit you (that I know of) from just buying
maneuvers with your karma. This allows someone who isn't that good to
"master" the form.

On ther other hand, if you judge that you can have a maneuver for each two
levels of the skill (as our group did), it means you must have a skill
rating of 18 to "master" that particular form.

18 dice, plus combat pool is a rather scary thought, even provided the
character isn't an adept with killing hands.

Grim Shear
"Until my return... oh wait, I'm back already."

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 10:30:01 2002

Message no. 3 > OK, this is my problem, IC rated at 9 or 10 is pretty common on high
> security systems, someone has programmed that IC, I've seen rating 20 IC,
> again someone has programmed that. Programming however limits you to
> writing
> programs which have a maximum rating equal to your computer(programming)
> skill...
> So is there actually a limit to which you can build a skill? There isn't
> one
> in the base rules TMK but the idea of samurai running round with all of
> their Karma going into their favourite Ingram smartgun and having to use a
>
> bucket to throw their dice scares me a little.
> Any thoughts?
>
[Valeu John EMFN]
Yes, very scary. I put the same limit that was on the Genisis video
game (Max Skill Level of 12). I figured if they want to spend the Karma to
get something that high, they've earned it. (I actually figured out how
much that costs from a given starting level. If you don't use the rule that
that improving skills past thier linked attribute cost more, it's 144 Karma
to go from 3 to 12.) It also lets players feel like there's room to
improve if they have a starting skill of 5 or 6. For some reason all the
players I've had felt that this is the glass roof. (Maybe it's because
that's as high as they go in the main book on that table?)

EMFN John Valeu
-AKA- TimeKeeper

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 14:00:02 2002

Message no. 4 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>

> OK, this is my problem, IC rated at 9 or 10 is pretty common on high
> security systems, someone has programmed that IC, I've seen rating 20 IC,
> again someone has programmed that. Programming however limits you to
writing
> programs which have a maximum rating equal to your computer(programming)
> skill...

Yeah, and those two facts together don't make sense. To accomodate for
this, I allow teams of programmers to write program that exceed their the
maximum skill among the members of the team. I don't have a fixed forula
for it (since I've never written it down as a rule) but basically 9
programmers all with level 8 programming skill can create a level 16
program, similarly 11 programmers all with level 10 programming skill can
create a level 20 program.

Basically, to determine if a team of n programers with skills {s1, ..., sn}
can write a program of rating r: First take max(si) over all 1 <= i <= n.
If this [max(si)] < ceiling(r / 2), then they cannot. Otherwise, add to it
[max(si)] the minimum of (1) the number of j that satisfy ceiling(r / 2) <sj, 1 <= j
<= n, j != i or (2) itself. If the result [max(si) + min(number
of j, max(si))] < r then they cannot. Otherwise, they can.

First case [n = 9, si = 8 (1<= i <= n), r = 16]: (First case above)
max(si) = 8.
ceiling(r / 2) = 8.
8 !< 8.
number of j = 8.
8 + min(8, 8) = 16 !< 16.
They can.
(This team cannot write a rating 17 program, since none of them is good
enough max(si) = 8 < 9 = ceiling(17 / 2).)

Second case [n = 4, s = {5, 2, 8, 7}, r = 10]: (This is the team from
Matrix p.80)
max(si) = 8.
ceiling(r / 2) = 5.
8 !< 5.
number of j = 2.
8 + min(2, 8) = 10 !< 10.
They can.
(This team cannot write a rating 11 program, since only the skill 7
programmer is good enough to help the skill 8 programmer on such a program,
and that's just not enough help.)

> So is there actually a limit to which you can build a skill? There isn't
one
> in the base rules TMK but the idea of samurai running round with all of
> their Karma going into their favourite Ingram smartgun and having to use
a
> bucket to throw their dice scares me a little.
> Any thoughts?

No limit BTB, but 8 is the highest listed on p98-99 or SR3. At the level
you are World Class/Genius level. IMO, no character (PC or NPC) should
ever have a general skill above 12, and probably not over 10.
Specializations should never go above 15, and probably not over 12.

Level 15 specializations would allow programs to be upto (but never beyond)
rating 30 (by my rule).

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Augustus)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 14:55:01 2002

Message no. 5 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
> So is there actually a limit to which you can build a skill? There isn't
one
> in the base rules TMK but the idea of samurai running round with all of
> their Karma going into their favourite Ingram smartgun and having to use a
> bucket to throw their dice scares me a little.
> Any thoughts?

If someone wants to pump up their firearm skill to a god like level, I say
let them...

Sure, with a skill of 10 or higher, they are pretty much guaranteed to down
just about anything the GM throws up against them... heck maybe even 2 or 3
opponents a round if they split their bursts or walk the fire...

But a skill of 6 to 8 will do the same thing with an SMG, a smartlink and
abit of combat pool (when you are looking for 2s and your opponents are
mostly looking for 5s to resist a 10S damage code, odds are definitly in the
favour of the PC)

Question: But who is it really hurting?

Answer: The rest of the group.

Now look at it from a party point of view... here is a team of runners, all
building up their skills as they progress... but then you got this one guy
that is totally one dimensional...

Can he be trusted to drive the getaway car? Probably not.
Can he biotech a downed party member or important NPC with a decent skill?
Probably not.
Can he sneak around well enough with the rest of party? Probably not.
Can he work his contacts with his Street Etiquette skill and get the info
the group needs? Probably not.
Can he pick that lock or blow open that door? Probably not.
Can he really do anything for the party, other than just kill the
opposition? Probably not.

Is he going to be any use to the party if the Johnson says "Don't kill
anybody" or "Keep it quiet and don't let anybody know you were in there"?
Probably not...

And thats the thing...

I ran a game a couple of years ago, where one of the players did this troll
physad up... after a whack of runs this guy had his SMG skill up to 10,
Katana up to 10 and he initiated and spent almost all his points towards
combat oriented abilities...

Thing was, even from day 1 the style of game play was not very combat
oriented... for most of the game sessions, this guy sat at the end of the
table and did nothing... just because his character was so useless to the
party (and hey, I even gave a warning to the PCs when making their character
to think about the PCs design... because it wasn't going to be combat
intensive).

So yeah... when the time came, he could kill the NPCs like crazy... there
was none better. But when it came to the other 98% of the run he was
totally useless.

So if you want to curb the insanely powered one dimensional character, don't
put a cap on skills... but instead work on making your runs less one
dimensional. Throw in a few "find the person/place/thing" runs... throw in
a few "Don't kill anybody, we don't need the heat or can't let them know we
were there" and similar runs.

If 90% of the time is spent in combat, then yeah, your PCs will be totally
beefing up those skills in favour of others... likewise, if you start
throwing in electronic locks into your runs and nobody has the skill, you'd
be suprised, but in the following runs, a few PCs will probably look into
learning it... because if they don't, their only recourse is always going to
be "slap on another couple of kilos of C-12 and lets proceed on"

Clint

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 15:00:01 2002

Message no. 6 On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> Yeah, and those two facts together don't make sense. To accomodate for
> this, I allow teams of programmers to write program that exceed their the
> maximum skill among the members of the team. I don't have a fixed forula
> for it (since I've never written it down as a rule) but basically 9
> programmers all with level 8 programming skill can create a level 16
> program, similarly 11 programmers all with level 10 programming skill can
> create a level 20 program.

After trying to construct my own deck and seeing that writing the MPCP
for a Fairlight Excalibur would require *someone* on the team with a
Computer skill of 12, I felt rather amused. Why? Because a computer
skill of 12 is twice the skill of someone considered to be a master in
their field. That would put a decker with such a skill at a rank
between demi-god and supreme overlord of the Matrix.

Honestly, we see programs today that are much more than the sum of all
their parts. OS's are written with huge teams of coders that each work
on a single component of the OS. Then, those components are assembled
and the result is greater than any of the pieces.

Now, according to the Matrix rules, in order to write a piece of
software with rating X we must have a team leader with a skill in
computer programming at rating X. Honestly, that's bullshit. I've been
on programming teams where the program we were doing was way beyond
the ability of any one programmer and even the project leader. And
sometimes you even get teams where the team leader can't even program.
He's the guy that knows what components the program will require
and how those components will interact. More often than not, he's a
guy that turns to you and says, "Look, this component has to talk to
this component with this information. Can you do that?"

In other words: Team leaders might be good coders, but usually they're
not. The real hackers stay down in the code not up in the design
layer.

While I feel that the Matrix cyberdeck construction rules may be
realistic with respect to time spent, target numbers, and cost (Ask
anyone that designs computer systems and they'll tell you that the
real cost is people, not the hardware or software); I feel that they
are total bunk when it comes to "required" skill levels.

An individual doesn't have to be a red hot coder to code something
like Windows or Linux, the skills that they need are organizational
and logical thinking. If you can break down any programming task into
its very components and component interaction then you can code just
about anything. It's that breaking down that tanks a lot of minds and
projects.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

From:	shadowrn@*******.com (shadowrn@*******.com)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 15:55:01 2002

Message no. 7 From: "Lone Eagle" <loneeagle2061@*******.com>
> So is there actually a limit to which you can build a skill? There isn't
one
> in the base rules TMK but the idea of samurai running round with all of
> their Karma going into their favourite Ingram smartgun and having to use a
> bucket to throw their dice scares me a little.
> Any thoughts?

IMC the combat skills generally tend to max out at 8. The current skills above 8 IMC are
Spell Design 12 and Computer 10. No other skill is above 8. The charcters have 200+
karma. What they have discovered is that the benefit to cost ratio is not worth it to go
above 8 unless a specific apllication of the skill is based on skill level. For example a
spell design of 12 allows you to design spells of level 12. (Yes he has done it once and
succedded on the astral quest to aid the learn but has not rolled a 24 to learn the
spell).

John

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 20:10:01 2002

Message no. 8 Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> Yeah, and those two facts together don't make sense. To accomodate for
> this, I allow teams of programmers to write program that exceed their the
> maximum skill among the members of the team. I don't have a fixed forula
> for it (since I've never written it down as a rule) but basically 9
> programmers all with level 8 programming skill can create a level 16
> program, similarly 11 programmers all with level 10 programming skill can
> create a level 20 program.
>
> Basically, to determine if a team of n programers with skills {s1, ..., sn}
> can write a program of rating r: First take max(si) over all 1 <= i <= n.
> If this [max(si)] < ceiling(r / 2), then they cannot. Otherwise, add to it
> [max(si)] the minimum of (1) the number of j that satisfy ceiling(r / 2) <> sj,
1 <= j <= n, j != i or (2) itself. If the result [max(si) + min(number
> of j, max(si))] < r then they cannot. Otherwise, they can.

Your method is good at determining if a team can successfully reach a
set goal. It would be easier to just determine what the maximum rating
a team could program, which can be found by doubling the average skill
of the team (round the average to the nearest whole).

Please note. I didn't spend any great amount of time testing my method.

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

I will see a competent psychiatrist and get cured of all
extremely unusual phobias and bizarre compulsive habits which
could prove to be a disadvantage.

Used Without Permission

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Fri Jul 12 20:15:01 2002

Message no. 9 Iridios wrote:
>
> Da Twink Daddy wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and those two facts together don't make sense. To accomodate for
> > this, I allow teams of programmers to write program that exceed their the
> > maximum skill among the members of the team. I don't have a fixed forula
> > for it (since I've never written it down as a rule) but basically 9
> > programmers all with level 8 programming skill can create a level 16
> > program, similarly 11 programmers all with level 10 programming skill can
> > create a level 20 program.
> >
> > Basically, to determine if a team of n programers with skills {s1, ..., sn}
> > can write a program of rating r: First take max(si) over all 1 <= i <= n.
> > If this [max(si)] < ceiling(r / 2), then they cannot. Otherwise, add to it
> > [max(si)] the minimum of (1) the number of j that satisfy ceiling(r / 2)
<> > sj, 1 <= j <= n, j != i or (2) itself. If the result [max(si) +
min(number
> > of j, max(si))] < r then they cannot. Otherwise, they can.
>
> Your method is good at determining if a team can successfully reach a
> set goal. It would be easier to just determine what the maximum rating
> a team could program, which can be found by doubling the average skill
> of the team (round the average to the nearest whole).
>
> Please note. I didn't spend any great amount of time testing my method.

Forgot to mention, my method would yield a rating twice the skill level
if all the team had the same skill level. Same as DTDs.

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

If my doomsday device happens to come with a reverse switch, as
soon as it has been employed it will be melted down and made
into limited-edition commemorative coins.

Used Without Permission

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 06:00:01 2002

Message no. 10 According to Da Twink Daddy, on Fri, 12 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> Basically, to determine if a team of n programers with skills {s1, ...,
> sn} can write a program of rating r: First take max(si) over all 1 <= i
> <= n. If this [max(si)] < ceiling(r / 2), then they cannot. Otherwise,
> add to it [max(si)] the minimum of (1) the number of j that satisfy
> ceiling(r / 2) <= sj, 1 <= j <= n, j != i or (2) itself.
If the result
> [max(si) + min(number of j, max(si))] < r then they cannot. Otherwise,
> they can.

And in non-programmer-speak, I _think_ what you're saying is this: if the
highest skill rating in the group is less than half the desired program
rating, rounded up, they can't write the program. Otherwise, the maximum
rating they can write is equal to either the number of people with skill
level less than or equal to half the program rating (rounded up) plus the
highest skill level, OR twice the highest skill level -- whichever total is
less. But I don't really understand what you mean by the last bit... WTF is
min(number of j, max(si))?

How about a write-up that's easier to follow? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 07:50:01 2002

Message no. 11 Valeu John EMFA writes:

> > So is there actually a limit to which you can build a skill? There isn't
> > one in the base rules TMK but the idea of samurai running round with all
> > of their Karma going into their favourite Ingram smartgun and having to
> > use a bucket to throw their dice scares me a little.

I rarely see skills get above about 8-10. After double figures, unless
you're using the cash-for-karma rules or running a very high karma game, the
return gets too little for the cost. My point, I guess, is that after a
while, getting more skill reaches a point of dimishing returns. For example,
there's little point in rolling more than about 10 successes with your
Ingram Smartgun burst, as that puts it 8 successes over Deadly. The vast
majority of things that you'll be shooting won't have 8 dice to roll, let
alone be able to get 8 successes, so rolling 10 successes is about the same
as rolling 500. Either way, the target is dead. The point of dimishing
returns also crops up with the ever increasing Karma cost to increase the
skill 1 more point. It just gets too expensive to be worthwhile.

> For some reason all the players I've had felt that this is the glass
> roof. (Maybe it's because that's as high as they go in the main book on
> that table?)

The table in the main book goes to "8+". A starting character can't get a
skill greater than 6, though. 8 is described as "world-class", and 6 as
"master".

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 14:10:01 2002

Message no. 12 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>

> > Basically, to determine if a team of n programers with skills {s1, ...,
> > sn} can write a program of rating r: First take max(si) over all 1 <i
> > <= n. If this [max(si)] < ceiling(r / 2), then they cannot. Otherwise,
> > add to it [max(si)] the minimum of (1) the number of j that satisfy
> > ceiling(r / 2) <= sj, 1 <= j <= n, j != i or (2) itself. If the result
> > [max(si) + min(number of j, max(si))] < r then they cannot. Otherwise,
> > they can.

> in non-programmer-speak, I _think_ what you're saying is this:

This is more a mathemical description than a programmer's description. I
thought that might be more platable to the masses. Here's a C programmers
description:

#include <stdlib.h> // For size_t and min().

typedef struct {
size_t memberCount;
size_t* memberSkills;
) group;

typdef enum {
FALSE = 0,
TRUE = 1
} boolean;

boolean canWrite(const group *g, size_t rating) {
int maxSkill = -1;
int maxSkillIndex = -1;
int countHelp = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < g->memberCount; ++i) {
if (g->memberSkills[i] > maxSkill) {
maxSkill = g->memberSkills[i];
maxSkillIndex = i;
}
}
if (maxSkill < (rating + 1) >> 1) { //Assumes two-complement notation.
return FALSE;
}
for (int i = 0; i < g->memberCount; ++i) {
if (i != maxSkillIndex && g->memberSkills[i] < (rating + 1) >> 1)
{
++countHelp;
}
}
if (maxSkill + min(maxSkill, countHelp) < rating) {
return FALSE;
}
return TRUE;
}

[It's been a while since I had to write in pure "C" so forgive me if I
inadventantly used some C++ operators there. Also, this is un-optimized--I
belive it's actually possiblt to combine the two for loops--It is simply a
straight-forward implemenation of my mathematical description.]

> if the
> highest skill rating in the group is less than half the desired program
> rating, rounded up, they can't write the program.

Correct.
max(si) is the highest skill in the group. ceiling(r/2) is half the
program rating rounded up.
So, this is the "If this [max(si)] < ceiling(r/2), then they cannot." part.

> Otherwise, the maximum
> rating they can write is equal to either the number of people with skill
> level less than or equal to half the program rating (rounded up)

But, don't count the "leader" the one with the highest skill level, when
determining this count.
That's the "j != i" part.

> plus the
> highest skill level, OR twice the highest skill level -- whichever total
is
> less.

What you said was "[min(2 * max(si), max(si) + number of j)]" which is
different but equivalent to the "[max(si) + min(number of j, max(si)]".

> But I don't really understand what you mean by the last bit... WTF is
> min(number of j, max(si))?

min(X, Y) is the least of X and Y.

> How about a write-up that's easier to follow? :)

Iridos's provided a very simple way to calculate which is equivalent to
mine in some cases. But, mine takes into account the leader (highest
skill) as a very special position, and also makes groups writing high
rating problems be fairly large.

I think you can sum up my writeup by saying: "To write a rating R program,
the team must have a leader with skill at least R / 2 (round up), plus at
least (R - leader's skill) OTHER members with skill at least R / 2 (round
up)."

I do wish there was some way to "reverse" my answer so that it answered the
question "What's the maximum rating this group can write?" rather than
"What's the minimum group that can write this program."

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 14:10:07 2002

Message no. 13 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Downtym" <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>

> > Yeah, and those two facts together don't make sense. To accomodate for
> > this, I allow teams of programmers to write program that exceed their
the
> > maximum skill among the members of the team. I don't have a fixed
forula
> > for it (since I've never written it down as a rule) but basically 9
> > programmers all with level 8 programming skill can create a level 16
> > program, similarly 11 programmers all with level 10 programming skill
can
> > create a level 20 program.

> After trying to construct my own deck and seeing that writing the MPCP
> for a Fairlight Excalibur would require *someone* on the team with a
> Computer skill of 12, I felt rather amused. Why? Because a computer
> skill of 12 is twice the skill of someone considered to be a master in
> their field. That would put a decker with such a skill at a rank
> between demi-god and supreme overlord of the Matrix.

Agreed. Someone wasn't thinking about the double-digits when they wrote
the Matrix (Although they might have just blindly carried it over from
VR2.)

> Honestly, we see programs today that are much more than the sum of all
> their parts. OS's are written with huge teams of coders that each work
> on a single component of the OS. Then, those components are assembled
> and the result is greater than any of the pieces.

Ah, yes. However, this is NOT what rating represents. Rating represent
the quality of each individual part. Multiplier indicates the number of
parts / part complexity. OSes have very large multipliers but the ones we
have right now don't have very high ratings. ;) More features = higher
multiplier. Higher quality (speed etc.) = higher rating.

> Now, according to the Matrix rules, in order to write a piece of
> software with rating X we must have a team leader with a skill in
> computer programming at rating X. Honestly, that's bullshit. I've been
> on programming teams where the program we were doing was way beyond
> the ability of any one programmer and even the project leader. And
> sometimes you even get teams where the team leader can't even program.
> He's the guy that knows what components the program will require
> and how those components will interact. More often than not, he's a
> guy that turns to you and says, "Look, this component has to talk to
> this component with this information. Can you do that?"

In some ways I agree with you, and in some ways I don't. I don't think
that Windows or Linux or a Java VM or an Application Server is really
beyond the ability of a single programmer. I think there are programmers
alive today that could write one of these, mostly from scratch (they get
standard libraries for thier chosen language). However, it would take so
much time that it is infeasible. And there are many programmers that DON'T
have the necessary design / componentizing skills to do it (even if they
can write the code for the components in a team situation.)

That said, higher quality code CAN come from well-organized groups because
of cross-checking that they each do to other code. A lot of times you can
get "tunnel-vision" about your programs and not catch the bugs you know are
going to happen. (But, that's doesn't make the program beyond your
ability--It just takes you longer because you have to get over your
"tunnel-vision".)

> In other words: Team leaders might be good coders, but usually they're
> not. The real hackers stay down in the code not up in the design
> layer.

I agree. That's why there are separate design and implementation skills in
Matrix and why they are a good thing. The "leader" in my formula isn't
necessarily the one who designs the program but (s)he is the most
experienced programmer and spends a lot of time answers other coder
questions and/or does a lot of cross-checking other coder's code and/or
does the majority of the actual code. The leader in a real life situation
has a firm grasp on deliverables and did the initial system design and
(usually) veto power over any design changes. It's more important for a
leader to be organized and have a good "overhead" view of the component
than to actually be able to write code.

> While I feel that the Matrix cyberdeck construction rules may be
> realistic with respect to time spent, target numbers, and cost (Ask
> anyone that designs computer systems and they'll tell you that the
> real cost is people, not the hardware or software); I feel that they
> are total bunk when it comes to "required" skill levels.

Well, except for them case of teams I think they are mostly realistic.
But, teams can definately produce programs that single-coders can't (in the
same time-frame).

> An individual doesn't have to be a red hot coder to code something
> like Windows or Linux, the skills that they need are organizational
> and logical thinking. If you can break down any programming task into
> its very components and component interaction then you can code just
> about anything. It's that breaking down that tanks a lot of minds and
> projects.

I don't know. I don't think one is really more important than the other
and it's kind of difficult to become a red-hot coder without picking up a
little of the other. Some tasks are impossible with out good
componentizing skills (Windows, Linux) almost all tasks are made simpler by
componentizing. But, some components are quite large/complex, and you may
need to be a read-hot coder to write them.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 14:10:15 2002

Message no. 14 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Iridios" <iridios@********.net>

> > Basically, to determine if a team of n programers with skills {s1, ...,
sn}
> > can write a program of rating r:

> Your method is good at determining if a team can successfully reach a
> set goal. It would be easier to just determine what the maximum rating
> a team could program, which can be found by doubling the average skill
> of the team (round the average to the nearest whole).

In my first case, your method works. However, your method doesn't "mesh"
with the degenerate case of a team of 1 programmer. Even in the case of 2
skil 8 programmers it doesn't mesh with my method. (My method allows a
level 9 progarm to be written, your allows a level 16 program to be
written.)

In my second case, we have average rating 5.5 = ([5 + 2 + 8 + 7 = 22] / 4)
which is equidistant from both 5 and 6 giving a maximum program rating of
10-12. My method doesn't allow anything over 10.

My method is generally more restrictive than your method and agrees with
the rest of the book for the degenerate case of a team of 1 programmer. My
method makes the size of the group more of a issue than yours.

Yes, I do wish there was a way to "reverse" my method to answer the
question "What's the maximum rating this group can program?" rather than
"What's the minimum group that can program this rating?"

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 14:10:24 2002

Message no. 15 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Da Twink Daddy" <datwinkdaddy@*******.com>

> No limit BTB, but 8 is the highest listed on p98-99 or SR3. At the level
> you are World Class/Genius level. IMO, no character (PC or NPC) should
> ever have a general skill above 12, and probably not over 10.
> Specializations should never go above 15, and probably not over 12.

As an addendum, I'd like to suggest the rule that a general skill can never
be greater 1.5x (round up) the linked attribute and specializations can
never be greater than 2x the linked attribute. (Or maybe 1.2x (round
nearest; up at .5) and 1.5x (round up) would be better.)

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 20:00:01 2002

Message no. 16 On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> I do wish there was some way to "reverse" my answer so that it answered the
> question "What's the maximum rating this group can write?" rather than
> "What's the minimum group that can write this program."

Well, that's easy:

If you want to say, "Suppose there are n programmers with skills s1,
s2, ..., sn. What is the max program these programmers can create?"

Then you're going to be forced to write some recursive definition in
order to move your way down the list. It would have to look something
like this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Max_Skill = max(s1, s2, ..., sn);
temp_Max_Rating = Max_Skill * 2;

if there exists (temp_Max_Rating - Max_Skill) other programmers with a
rating equivalent to (temp_Max_Rating / 2) then

Max_Rating = temp_Max_Rating;

else, find the next highest rating until you run out of people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Something you should notice is that (temp_Max_Rating - Max_Skill) is
equivalent to (temp_Max_Rating/2) since (temp_Max_Rating == Max_Skill
* 2). In fact, (temp_Max_Rating - Max_Skill == Max_Skill). The proof
is trivial and left up to the reader. ;-)

Therefore, it would be really easy to just say:

"The highest program that a person can create with a team is equal to
his computer rating times two. There must be as many teammates with
the same computer rating as this individual in order to create this
program."

Now, for the minimum, all you have to say is:

"Given n programmers with skill ratings s1, s2, ..., sn, what is
lowest rating program these individuals can write?"

Well, let's state that s1, s2, ..., sn must be greater than zero. I
mean, if they have a zero skill, they don't even have the skill,
right?

Then this is pretty trivial if you think about it for a second...the
answer is 1.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 20:35:01 2002

Message no. 17 On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> Ah, yes. However, this is NOT what rating represents. Rating represent
> the quality of each individual part. Multiplier indicates the number of
> parts / part complexity. OSes have very large multipliers but the ones we
> have right now don't have very high ratings. ;) More features = higher
> multiplier. Higher quality (speed etc.) = higher rating.

I don't buy this definition.

This is my line of logic:

What if a program can has unbelievable
quality but no features? Does that make it worthy of a high rating?
The program "ftp(1)" is an example of this. Now, what's the rating on
ftp(1)? Nothing. I can write a ftp program in a few moments, debug it,
and it'll run flawlessly 99.9% of the time. (In fact, I have)

Now, what's the rating on, say, "WS-FTP"(tm)? Considering it has a
friendly gui, lots of options, and lots of features (As you would say)
I state that the rating is much higher (WS-FTP is a lot more powerful
than just plain old ftp(1)). Now, WS-FTP and ftp(1) are
both the same program (Anyone that argues this point will be shot),
but WS-FTP is obviously a higher rating program than ftp(1). Why?
Because it is more powerful.

> In some ways I agree with you, and in some ways I don't. I don't think
> that Windows or Linux or a Java VM or an Application Server is really
> beyond the ability of a single programmer.

Quick history lesson:

The first version of the Linux kernel was written by a single man.
The first version of MS-DOS was written by a single man.
There are a number of solo projects today that write their own
application servers.
The JVM was originally the work of a very small team.

Now, these all started out "rating one programs", but they quickly
grew into huge beasties less because of the efforts of a large team
that sat down and said, "Today we will be coding foo!" then the
efforts of individuals that slowly added components, functionality,
and features to the programs.

> I think there are programmers alive today that could write one of
> these, mostly from scratch (they get standard libraries for thier
> chosen language). However, it would take so much time that it is
> infeasible. And there are many programmers that DON'T have the
> necessary design / componentizing skills to do it (even if they
> can write the code for the components in a team situation.)

Oh, there are very, very few programmers alive today that can write an
OS, VM, or major application by themselves. That's why we have so
few...Of course, a rating 6 skill is supposedly "Master" and 8 is
supposedly "World-Class" and how many Master and World-Class
athletes are there in the world today? Just because there are many
that don't have the skills does not mean there aren't a few that do.

> That said, higher quality code CAN come from well-organized groups because
> of cross-checking that they each do to other code. A lot of times you can
> get "tunnel-vision" about your programs and not catch the bugs you know are
> going to happen. (But, that's doesn't make the program beyond your
> ability--It just takes you longer because you have to get over your
> "tunnel-vision".)

Some good code also comes out of small or solo endeavors. The amount
of organizational difficulty when moving from a single individual to a
group increases on an exponential scale when you deal with software.
Organizing a team to program is actually one of the first most
agonizing experiences for programmers throughout the world because
many of us learned to code on our own.

As for cross-checking code: You must also remember the rule that too
many cooks spoil the soup.

> I agree. That's why there are separate design and implementation skills in
> Matrix and why they are a good thing. The "leader" in my formula isn't
> necessarily the one who designs the program but (s)he is the most
> experienced programmer and spends a lot of time answers other coder
> questions and/or does a lot of cross-checking other coder's code and/or
> does the majority of the actual code. The leader in a real life situation
> has a firm grasp on deliverables and did the initial system design and
> (usually) veto power over any design changes. It's more important for a
> leader to be organized and have a good "overhead" view of the component
> than to actually be able to write code.

And my argument is that it's the organizational ability that
determines whether something as grandiose as a modern OS works or does
not work much more than the efforts of any individual programmer. If
you take everything down to its core components and logical
interactions then you can very easily code pieces that fit together.

It's like building a castle out of legoes. If you see how the pieces
fit together and you know where the construction will lead, then
you've already accomplished 80% of the task at hand.

> Well, except for them case of teams I think they are mostly realistic.
> But, teams can definately produce programs that single-coders can't (in the
> same time-frame).

This is true. However, in Matrix it specifically states that the max
program that a team can create is equal to the rating of the
individual with the highest Computer(Programming) skill. So, in
essence, what Shadowrun is telling us is that you can never rise above
the achievements of a single individual no matter how many people you
get together.

> I don't know. I don't think one is really more important than the other
> and it's kind of difficult to become a red-hot coder without picking up a
> little of the other. Some tasks are impossible with out good
> componentizing skills (Windows, Linux) almost all tasks are made simpler by
> componentizing. But, some components are quite large/complex, and you may
> need to be a read-hot coder to write them.

I'm not going to say that it's impossible for a component to be too
large or complex if properly designed given my meager experience with
large software projects, but I rationalize that those large and
complex components would be better dealt with if they were broken down
into smaller components. The problem arises when people do not follow
good engineering practices and try to throw pieces together.

One rather interesting rule of thumb that has always served me well is
to describe a component's responsibility in a program. If I hit any
"ands" then I immediately break it into smaller pieces. It's done
wonders for some code. =)

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sat Jul 13 20:50:01 2002

Message no. 18 Da Twink Daddy wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Iridios" <iridios@********.net>
>
> > > Basically, to determine if a team of n programers with skills {s1, ...,
> sn}
> > > can write a program of rating r:
>
> > Your method is good at determining if a team can successfully reach a
> > set goal. It would be easier to just determine what the maximum rating
> > a team could program, which can be found by doubling the average skill
> > of the team (round the average to the nearest whole).
>
> In my first case, your method works. However, your method doesn't "mesh"
> with the degenerate case of a team of 1 programmer. Even in the case of 2
> skil 8 programmers it doesn't mesh with my method. (My method allows a
> level 9 progarm to be written, your allows a level 16 program to be
> written.)

A team of 1 is not, IMO, a team. It's a solo effort. So that situation
doesn't come under consideration. However, you are correct about a team
of two. I did mention I didn't run enough tests on my hypothesis. It
was late (for me).

> Yes, I do wish there was a way to "reverse" my method to answer the
> question "What's the maximum rating this group can program?" rather than
> "What's the minimum group that can program this rating?"

That's what I started working for, but perhaps your way better simulates
what actually happens when a development team comes together. They
first determine how many programmers they might need. Of course, the
more programmers of high skill level you have, the less overall number
you need.

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

If I learn the whereabouts of the one artifact which can destroy
me, I will not send all my troops out to seize it. Instead I
will send them out to seize something else and quietly put a
Want-Ad in the local paper.

Used Without Permission

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sun Jul 14 07:10:01 2002

Message no. 19 According to Da Twink Daddy, on Sat, 13 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> This is more a mathemical description than a programmer's description. I
> thought that might be more platable to the masses.

To the masses who studied maths and/or programming, perhaps. As I never got
beyond highschool maths and am entirely self-taught where it comes to
programming, I could barely understand what you meant...

> > Otherwise, the maximum
> > rating they can write is equal to either the number of people with
> > skill level less than or equal to half the program rating (rounded up)
>
> But, don't count the "leader" the one with the highest skill level, when
> determining this count.
> That's the "j != i" part.

I must have overlooked that bit, probably because when I see formulas and
similar stuff in a sentence I generally read "(1) the number of j that
satisfy blah blah blah or (2) itself" :)

> min(X, Y) is the least of X and Y.

It certainly helps to know that...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sun Jul 14 07:10:04 2002

Message no. 20 According to Downtym, on Sun, 14 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> What if a program can has unbelievable
> quality but no features? Does that make it worthy of a high rating?

If you look at the actual game rules, then a program's rating indicates how
good it is at what it's supposed to do. With a rating 1 browse utility,
you'll be hard-pressed to find what you're looking for, while with a rating
6 browse, you're much more likely to get it. I suggest this is for two
reasons: one is that rating 6 browse is, for whatever reason, better at
finding stuff than the rating 1 is, and the other is that it has features
that will help you define what you're looking for better.

For example, rating 1 browse could be compared to a WWW search engine which
is case-sensitive, where you can only enter a single word, and it only
searches pages whose filename ends in ".htm". Rating 6 browse could be one
where you can use operators like AND, OR and NOT (and plenty of other
features to define the search pattern), and which searches any file it
comes across up to and including comments embedded in images.

> Now, these all started out "rating one programs", but they quickly
> grew into huge beasties less because of the efforts of a large team
> that sat down and said, "Today we will be coding foo!" then the
> efforts of individuals that slowly added components, functionality,
> and features to the programs.

I'm thinking that there should be a fairly easy way to fix this whole
problem. Basically, you're both saying that to write a high-rating program
with a team of people (or even alone), you split the big task into smaller
ones. So my reasoning is that this can be applied to SR as well: instead of
requiring a team to write a single rating 12 program, they could be writing
four rating 3 programs and putting them all together.

The problem is that this causes size differences: four rating 3 programs
take up (36 x size multiplier) Mp while a single rating 12 program requires
(144 x size multiplier) Mp... A solution would be to make each sub-program
take up an amount of memory equal to the base program's size, divided by
its rating, and multiplied by the rating of the sub-program.

The team would need a leader to coordinate and plan. Planning happens as
per Matrix, p. 78, but also requires a Leadership test with a target number
equal to the number of people working on the program (including the leader
if he or she is a coder as well). Every success on this test gives a -1
modifier on the bug test (p. 81, Matrix) -- but the normal "Programmed by
team" modifier is not used.

For example, writing a rating 12 Analyze (432 Mp) can be done by four
people by having each write a rating 3 program with a size of 432 / 12 x 3
= 108 Mp. The leader needs to roll a Leadership (4) test to coordinate
everyting properly.

The same Analyze program could be broken up into 12 rating 1 programs with
a size of 36 Mp each, but the leader would need to roll 12s and so it's
likely to be more buggy than when written by fewer people. But it does take
less time to complete...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sun Jul 14 07:15:01 2002

Message no. 21 According to Gurth, on Sun, 14 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> The team would need a leader to coordinate and plan. Planning happens as
> per Matrix, p. 78, but also requires a Leadership test with a target
> number equal to the number of people working on the program (including
> the leader if he or she is a coder as well). Every success on this test
> gives a -1 modifier on the bug test (p. 81, Matrix) -- but the normal
> "Programmed by team" modifier is not used.

That's what you get for not reading things through properly... I figured
these were TN modifiers, not Open Test modifiers. So the "Programmed by
team" modifier _is_ used, and each success on the Leadership test offsets
one point of this modifier (to a maximum of +0).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sun Jul 14 16:25:01 2002

Message no. 22 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Downtym" <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>

> Something you should notice is that (temp_Max_Rating - Max_Skill) is
> equivalent to (temp_Max_Rating/2) since (temp_Max_Rating == Max_Skill
> * 2). In fact, (temp_Max_Rating - Max_Skill == Max_Skill). The proof
> is trivial and left up to the reader. ;-)

Well, these are all true for the first iteration of the algorithm, but if
the first iteration does not yield an answer, these no longer hold.

> Therefore, it would be really easy to just say:

> "The highest program that a person can create with a team is equal to
> his computer rating times two. There must be as many teammates with
> the same computer rating as this individual in order to create this
> program."

This simple statement is true but doesn't completely answer the questions
"What's the highest rating this team can program?" For example what's the
highest rathing a team of 6, 5, and 4 make? (8) or a 8, 7, 5, 2 team? (10)
or a 12, 10, 9, 7, 6, 6, 4 team? (14)

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Sun Jul 14 16:25:04 2002

Message no. 23 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Downtym" <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>

[I mostly agree with anything I snipped and didn't reply to.]

> > More features = higher
> > multiplier. Higher quality (speed etc.) = higher rating.
>
> I don't buy this definition.

I don't buy your example. In SR terms, WS-FTP is an application (and IMO
not a very high rating one.) and ftp(1) is a utility. I really do think
your are comparing to "different" programs with different multipliers.
(They might have different ratings too.)

My definitions are wrong by cannon though (which is where I thought I got
them). By cannon multiplier ~ [core] complexity, rating ~
[additional/optional] features.

[Of course, that seems a little backwards given that your skill limits the
rating you can write and not the multiplier you can write.]

> > I don't think
> > that Windows or Linux or a Java VM or an Application Server is really
> > beyond the ability of a single programmer.

> The first version of the Linux kernel was written by a single man.
> The first version of MS-DOS was written by a single man.
> The JVM was originally the work of a very small team.

I mean the current version(s).

> And my argument is that it's the organizational ability that
> determines whether something as grandiose as a modern OS works or does
> not work much more than the efforts of any individual programmer.

I think you are discounting programing skill too much. Organization is
important, but you've got to have high quality developers as well.

> It's like building a castle out of legoes. If you see how the pieces
> fit together and you know where the construction will lead, then
> you've already accomplished 80% of the task at hand.

I think your percentage is too high.

> > But, teams can definately produce programs that single-coders can't.

> This is true. However, in Matrix it specifically states that the max
> program that a team can create is equal to the rating of the
> individual with the highest Computer(Programming) skill.

Yeah, and that is stupid, really. Which is (one reason) why I have my
proposed team programing rules. I think they make more sense then cannon
even if they don't really mesh with real-life.

> > Some tasks are impossible with out good
> > componentizing skills (Windows, Linux) almost all tasks are made
simpler by
> > componentizing. But, some components are quite large/complex, and you
may
> > need to be a read-hot coder to write them.
>
> I'm not going to say that it's impossible for a component to be too
> large or complex. The problem arises when people do not follow
> good engineering practices and try to throw pieces together.

I believe there is some "root" complexity to each particular program that
can't be componentized away and if you don't have the skills (could be
drawn from multiple programmers) to deal with that complexity, your program
will never get done.

> One rather interesting rule of thumb that has always served me well is
> to describe a component's responsibility in a program. If I hit any
> "ands" then I immediately break it into smaller pieces. It's done
> wonders for some code. =)

That's a very good rule. Simple, easy to apply, and very useful.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 04:55:01 2002

Message no. 24 >From: "Da Twink Daddy" <datwinkdaddy@*******.com>
<Snip>
>In some ways I agree with you, and in some ways I don't. I don't think
>that Windows or Linux or a Java VM or an Application Server is really
>beyond the ability of a single programmer. I think there are programmers
>alive today that could write one of these, mostly from scratch (they get
>standard libraries for thier chosen language). However, it would take so
>much time that it is infeasible. <Snip>

Here's an idea, although I'd like to point out that it is straight off the
top of my head and may have holes the size of the Pacific in it; How about
if a programmer is capable of programming a maximum rating equal to 1.5
times his skill level, however because he has less than the required
knowledge the memory size of the program is increased by Rating/Skill, so
someone with computer 1 could program a rating 2 utility but it would be
twice the size it needed to be (maybe because he's used goto loops rather
than if,until...etc). In addition, the time taken, based on the modified
memory size, is also increased by a similar amount.
So a programmer with computer (programming) 4 can try to write a rating 8
sleaze utility, (normal memory size 8^2 x 3 = 192Mp) but its memory size
will be 384Mp and it will take him up to 769 days (768 days + 1 day for the
program plan) to write, divided by an absolute maximum of 4.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 05:05:01 2002

Message no. 25 On Sunday, July 14, 2002, at 09:56 , Da Twink Daddy wrote:

>
> This simple statement is true but doesn't completely answer the
> questions
> "What's the highest rating this team can program?" For example what's
> the
> highest rathing a team of 6, 5, and 4 make? (8) or a 8, 7, 5, 2 team?
> (10)
> or a 12, 10, 9, 7, 6, 6, 4 team? (14)
>
>
And here is some C code that allows you to do things like:

% ./teamMaxRating 4 5 6
Maximum rating team can produce is 8.
% ./teamMaxRating 8 7 5 2
Maximum rating team can produce is 10.
% ./teamMaxRating 12 10 9 7 6 6 4
Maximum rating team can produce is 14.
% ./teamMaxRating 12 10
Maximum rating team can produce is 14.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])

{
int retval = 0;

if (argc < 3) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s <ratings>\n", argv[0]);
retval = 1;
}
else {
int numberOfRatings = argc - 1;
int *twiceSkill = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * numberOfRatings);

if (twiceSkill) {
int i, j, swap;
int highestSkill;
int maxRating = 1;
int neededNumberOfSkills;

// Populate the array
for (i = 0; i < numberOfRatings; i++) {
twiceSkill[i] = atoi(argv[i + 1]) * 2;
}

// Sort the array primitively
for (i = 0; i < numberOfRatings; i++) {
for (j = i + 1; j < numberOfRatings; j++) {
if (twiceSkill[j] > twiceSkill[i]) {
swap = twiceSkill[j];
twiceSkill[j] = twiceSkill[i];
twiceSkill[i] = swap;
}
}
}

// Get the highest skill
highestSkill = twiceSkill[0] / 2;

// Find the highest rating
for (i = twiceSkill[0]; 1 == maxRating && i > 0; i -= 2) {
neededNumberOfSkills = i - highestSkill;
for (j = 0; j < numberOfRatings; j++) {
if (twiceSkill[j] < i) {
break;
}
}
if (j >= neededNumberOfSkills) {
maxRating = i;
}
}
printf("Maximum rating team can produce is %d.\n", maxRating);
free(twiceSkill);
}
else {
fprintf(stderr, "Could not allocate memory for %d
ratings.\n", numberOfRatings);
retval = 2;
}
}
exit(retval);
return retval;
}

--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 10:45:01 2002

Message no. 26 <delurk>

>From: Gurth

>According to Gurth, on Sun, 14 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

[SNIP] <---courtesy of WordSnipperXP by Microdaft Corporation

Disclaimer: As I am not replying to a specific portion of this thread, I
just grabbed the last message I had from it.

Okay, if a skill of 6 is equivalent to mastery, and an 8 to grand
mastery...wtf is a 12 or a 16?!?

Because if the maximum rating of a program is the highest skill level of a
coder working on it...and a grand master coder has a skill of 8...does
anyone else see then inconsistancy here?

I have NEVER run a game where anyone had a skill over an 8 (general skill).
I personally know someone who has achieved the rank of "grand master" in a
real world skill. They are one of perhaps a dozen world wide alive at this
time. And that is how it will always be...how it has always been. "Grand
masters" are rarer than honest politicians. So I am a little confused as to
how you would ever come across a program rating of 10, let alone 16...IC or
utility.

My solution to this is two-fold.

1. For player characters: they can write utilities/IC up to their
programming skill x 2. This also applies to NPC deckers with resources
equivalent to those of PCs.

2. For corporations/goverments/datahavens/etc: they have whatever ratings of
IC and utilities they need to challenge the person coming in the door.

If PC decker Cybergeek decides he wants to deck the Ares orbitol weapons
platform and drop a Thor missile strike...he faces IC from places beyond
Hell...and I don't worry about who coded it or how. While I have a lot of
respect for the math/code/etc that has been bandied about to formulate
coding teams...I am not sure I see the point. Maybe I missed something; I
am sure someone will point it out quickly if I have. And since I am on the
thin ice of ranting in one of our longer running threads of the last
month...I do expect some flak. :)

Personally, I have never had the time as a GM to worry about the team of
geeks in cubicles that coded the IC my PCs are shredding. And I have never
had any active PCs with the time to write killer utilities of any
appreciable size...or any PCs with such a narrow skill focus they could
afford to raise a skill above an 8. If they have anything over an 8, it
will be a specialization, and they will have 1 (at most).

So, feel free to tell me what I missed that makes this info necessary, but
until then, I think it is a lot of mental aerobics for nothing.

</relurk>

Korishinzo
--bracing for impact

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 10:50:01 2002

Message no. 27 At 14:44 15.07.2002 +0000, Ice Heart wrote:

<snip>

>Okay, if a skill of 6 is equivalent to mastery, and an 8 to grand
>mastery...wtf is a 12 or a 16?!?

IMHO ist called "stupid" *g*

--
Arclight

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Max Noel)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 11:25:01 2002

Message no. 28 At 14:44 15/07/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>Okay, if a skill of 6 is equivalent to mastery, and an 8 to grand
>mastery...wtf is a 12 or a 16?!?

Well, let's just say that Dodger (yeah, THE Dodger) has a
Computers (Decking) skill of 10 (12). 'nuff said. Considering that there is
only one living metahuman on Earth who is capable of beating him (Fastjack):
1) Characters that have a skill (or more) in this range indicate that
something's gone horribly wrong with the campaign's power level
2) Either there is something wrong with the rules, or the corps hired
Fastjack or a true AI to write their insane-level IC's.
Ooh... Now that has potential... What if Deus had written the code
for the ICs guarding extremely sensitive research data? What if he had left
a backdoor only he is aware of (due to the overwhelming complexity of the
program)? *egmg*

-- Wild_Cat, over.

maxnoel_fr@*****.fr
ICQ UIN: 85274019
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT d-(+) s++: a---?@ C++(++++)>$ !U L+ E- W++@ N w+(++@) !O M- PS(+) PE
Y(+) PGP++ t 5 X R+(+++>$) tv+ b++(+++) DI+@ D++ G e(+++>$) h! r y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @*****.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.comm

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 15:05:01 2002

Message no. 29 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Harrison" <scott@**********.com>

> % ./teamMaxRating 12 10
> Maximum rating team can produce is 14.

This doesn't follow my method. A programmer with skill 12 will need at
least 2 MORE people will skill at least 7 to produce a rating 14 program by
my method.

Sure, the C code is easy enough to write/compile/use but, I'm not sure the
average player wants to use an iterative method to calculate this stuff
during a gaming session.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 17:20:00 2002

Message no. 30 On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Ice Heart wrote:

> So I am a little confused as to how you would ever come across a
> program rating of 10, let alone 16...IC or utility.

As am I given that Matrix has a few security sheefs showing rating 10
ice floating around...Not to mention the whole idea of the Fairlight
Excalibur's existence.

> 1. For player characters: they can write utilities/IC up to their
> programming skill x 2. This also applies to NPC deckers with resources
> equivalent to those of PCs.

I've been leaning towards this rule with one exception: Attempting to
code something beyond your Computer(programming) rating requires a
team. It's short, fast, to the point, and makes sense in a fuzzy
logic, hand waving sort of sense. Plus it means that a decker with a
rating 6 skill (Mastery) is able to code rating 12 programs (Which
deserve the phrase 'Mastery' or 'World Class' to describe them).

> 2. For corporations/goverments/datahavens/etc: they have whatever ratings of
> IC and utilities they need to challenge the person coming in the door.

This is true because Megas have money. If you check the costs on IC
then you'll see that a significantly rated piece of IC (Ie: Rating 8+)
is pretty damn expensive. Utilities (Depending on the type) become
outrageously expensive around rating 6 - 10.

> If PC decker Cybergeek decides he wants to deck the Ares orbitol weapons
> platform and drop a Thor missile strike...he faces IC from places beyond
> Hell...and I don't worry about who coded it or how.

I've been trying to look at the SR rules more analytically and
determine the how's, when's, and why's of the rules. I feel that more
needs to be done in the way of saying that a skill of X rating denotes
X power and ability. Quite frankly, I've fallen in love with the D20
system of challenge ratings and threat ratings and I feel that
something more formulated for SR would make my games a helluva lot
more fun. Nearly four years of GM'ing later, I still have to resort to
taking everyone's character sheet and going stat by stat in order to
create a "decent" challenge for them.

Of course, sometimes I still screw up and the team rolls over the bad
guys like they were spaghetti or they end up with a stack of serious
wounds from a bunch of gangers.

> While I have a lot of respect for the math/code/etc that has been
> bandied about to formulate coding teams...I am not sure I see the
> point.

I feel that if a roleplaying game requires a knowledge of Algebra or
Calculus to play then you've gone way too far. I feel that roleplaying
rules should be transparent, logical, and quickly applied to the
situation to give the players more of a feeling of personality and
activity.

As an example, my average SR combat involving 4 PC's and 8 NPC's takes
about an hour to do and involves more than a trivial amount of
flipping through rulebooks and chart staring. My average D&D combat
involving 4 PC's and 30 NPC's takes about 10 minutes to 30 minutes
depending on how together the players are that day.

[There's a tad bit of hyperbole up there, but not much. ;-) ]

> And since I am on the thin ice of ranting in one of our longer
> running threads of the last month...I do expect some flak. :)

I say, "<Rant='on'>!" I think these Matrix rules are finally what has
taken me to the breaking point of saying that there's something wrong
in SRville with respect to how the rules are not only made, but also
playtested. I can't imagine them playtesting the Matrix rules and
someone actually saying, "Dude, these deck construction and program
construction rules are ph47 1337! I should be able to build my own
decent deck in like 8 years or something! r0xx0r!!!!1111!!!111!"

> Personally, I have never had the time as a GM to worry about the team of
> geeks in cubicles that coded the IC my PCs are shredding. And I have never
> had any active PCs with the time to write killer utilities of any
> appreciable size...or any PCs with such a narrow skill focus they could
> afford to raise a skill above an 8. If they have anything over an 8, it
> will be a specialization, and they will have 1 (at most).

Given the sheer karma cost of raising a skill to 8, not to mention the
training time rules (Yes, my GM uses them. Yes, he's a sadist,
apparently), and not to mention that anything over an 8 is getting
into the realm of "Roll a Metric Bucket Ton of dice", I can completely
understand why few characters ever get above a skill of 8.

As to worrying about the IC that the PC's are shredding, it's a matter
of continuity. Part of the breaking point has been that I haven't seen
a piece of IC below rating 8 (!!!!) on a single decking run in SR3.
And this is on everything from Green to Red systems. I seriously begin
to question how vast the computing powers of some of the mom-and-pop
corps that I will be hitting soon are given that IC seems to flow as
freely as water. And as a side note, I wonder how much their equipment
is worth on the black market given the sheer volume of equipment
needed to run an appreciable amount of IC...

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 17:25:01 2002

Message no. 31 On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Max Noel wrote:

> At 14:44 15/07/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >Okay, if a skill of 6 is equivalent to mastery, and an 8 to grand
> >mastery...wtf is a 12 or a 16?!?

> Ooh... Now that has potential... What if Deus had written the code
> for the ICs guarding extremely sensitive research data? What if he had left
> a backdoor only he is aware of (due to the overwhelming complexity of the
> program)? *egmg*

Or what if your GM is too damn lazy to bother with continuity and
logic? =P

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Mon Jul 15 17:50:01 2002

Message no. 32 On Monday, July 15, 2002, at 09:00 , Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Harrison" <scott@**********.com>
>
>> % ./teamMaxRating 12 10
>> Maximum rating team can produce is 14.
>
> This doesn't follow my method. A programmer with skill 12 will need at
> least 2 MORE people will skill at least 7 to produce a rating 14
> program by
> my method.
>
> Sure, the C code is easy enough to write/compile/use but, I'm not sure
> the
> average player wants to use an iterative method to calculate this stuff
> during a gaming session.
>
>

Ahh, I misunderstood the explanation. That is easy enough to fix...just
make the neededNumberOfSkills higher by one.

I am not sure what you mean by "iterative method ... session." Are you
saying that people do not want to answer the question you posed
earlier -- "What is the maximum rating this team can produce?" Or are
you saying something along the lines of "If I need a system of Rating X
what type of team would I need to produce that?"

--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 05:35:00 2002

Message no. 33 >From: "Ice Heart" <korishinzo@*******.com>
><delurk>
>
>>From: Gurth
>
>>According to Gurth, on Sun, 14 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...
>
>[SNIP] <---courtesy of WordSnipperXP by Microdaft Corporation

Unfortunately this is not compatable with any of your current drivers, your
datajack will disconnect in 5, 4, 3, 2....

>Disclaimer: As I am not replying to a specific portion of this thread, I
>just grabbed the last message I had from it.
>
>Okay, if a skill of 6 is equivalent to mastery, and an 8 to grand
>mastery...wtf is a 12 or a 16?!?
>
>Because if the maximum rating of a program is the highest skill level of a
>coder working on it...and a grand master coder has a skill of 8...does
>anyone else see then inconsistancy here?
>
>I have NEVER run a game where anyone had a skill over an 8 (general skill).
> I personally know someone who has achieved the rank of "grand master" in
>a real world skill. They are one of perhaps a dozen world wide alive at
>this time. And that is how it will always be...how it has always been.
>"Grand masters" are rarer than honest politicians. So I am a little
>confused as to how you would ever come across a program rating of 10, let
>alone 16...IC or utility.

Nothing is as rare as honest politicians, ancient cultures all over the
world used the same word for politician as they used for "totally dishonest
git who'll shaft everyone the moment they have a chance in order to attain
world domination or a seat on the board of a really big company".
Rocking horse sh@*, horse feathers and clean students are all more common.

>My solution to this is two-fold.
>
>1. For player characters: they can write utilities/IC up to their
>programming skill x 2. This also applies to NPC deckers with resources
>equivalent to those of PCs.
>
>2. For corporations/goverments/datahavens/etc: they have whatever ratings
>of IC and utilities they need to challenge the person coming in the door.

How? Anything the corps can do the PC's might want to try, if it is possible
for the corp to create then the PC's might be capable of reverse engineering
it, they might even be hired to do so. I have players looking at trading
stock with the aim of asset stripping, I have players wondering what it
takes to build/buy a matrix host, just a blue-3 but still...
I have a pair of deckers, (one my PC, on the PC of the other GM) plus two
other characters capable of participating in programming operations, I have
people asking about building bleeding edge tech in the future.
What makes the people at Fairlight so special? Why can they program the MPCP
12 when not even the most determined legal character could if the maximum
skill were 8. Simply doubling the computer skill doesn't work, it allows
average programmers to program nearly SOTA utilities, there must be some
reason within the rules as listed or with minimum of modification to those
rules, you could claim of course that Leonardo da Vinci created most of the
highest rated stuff, I don't know if his stats are listed anywhere but from
Black Madonna he seems to be able to do more or less what he wants with the
SOTA curve. but there has to be a logic there, if one of my players can't do
something they want to know why.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 05:40:01 2002

Message no. 34 According to Downtym, on Mon, 15 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> I say, "<Rant='on'>!" I think these Matrix rules are finally
what has
> taken me to the breaking point of saying that there's something wrong
> in SRville with respect to how the rules are not only made, but also
> playtested. I can't imagine them playtesting the Matrix rules and
> someone actually saying, "Dude, these deck construction and program
> construction rules are ph47 1337! I should be able to build my own
> decent deck in like 8 years or something! r0xx0r!!!!1111!!!111!"

That has always been a problem with SR deck construction rules. Well, that
and the ridiculously high cost of what amounts to a networked PC, IMHO. Not
that I'm saying I wouldn't have liked to see more realistic construction
times for cyberdecks, but OTOH continuity would have gone to hell if with a
new set of rules you can build a deck in 8 weeks rather than the 8 years it
cost you with the previous version of those rules.

> And as a side note, I wonder how much their equipment
> is worth on the black market given the sheer volume of equipment
> needed to run an appreciable amount of IC...

Like I've said a couple of times before, the easiest solution is to lower
the costs by a pretty large factor. Sure, it makes decks and stuff cheap,
but isn't that what they _should_ be, if you look at RL stuff?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 08:10:00 2002

Message no. 35 Lone Eagle writes:

> How? Anything the corps can do the PC's might want to try, if it is
> possible for the corp to create then the PC's might be capable of reverse
> engineering it, they might even be hired to do so. I have players looking
> at trading stock with the aim of asset stripping, I have players wondering
> what it takes to build/buy a matrix host, just a blue-3 but still...
> ...
> but there has to be a logic there, if one of my players can't do something
> they want to know why.

At the risk of sounding like a cop out, I'll state the (in my opinion ;-))
obvious answer to this pseudo-rant: it's only a game; don't get your
knickers in a knot. :-)

Not that you don't have valid points, though. The game, the rules, and the
world (both real and game) could all do with a bit more consistency, if you
ask me. But the lacking of various things you're asking for is probably more
due to omission, or the large number of authors, than actual malicious
intent to damage your game ;-). Many of the points have simply never come up
in a published product, and most probably never will.

It's a game. It's only meant for fun. It's only supposed to be an
approximation of the real world for entertainment purposes. Heck, if FASA
(WizKids, FanPro) had developed a perfectly realistic model of the universe,
they could have sold it for a lot more than US$30 a pop, I can assure you
;-). Make up what's lacking - that's your job as a GM. Flesh out the world.
Focus on the bits your PCs are interested in. I've got rather obscure rules
for some odd metamagic techniques, but not for some obvious other ones that
should probably likewise exist. This is because my PCs were interested in
some things, but not others. The game didn't cater for those things (hey, it
can't cater for everything ;-)), so I made it up. I didn't waste time making
up stuff that wasn't going to get used, though.

The biggest problem, I think, is when various authors get together (or,
rather, fail to do so, or fail to do their research properly) and create
conflicting, or internally inconsistent sets of rules and game world
circumstances. This is a rather poor error of omission, in my view, and it
does create hassles sometimes. But, hey, that's what house rules are for
;-). Try some on, I'm sure you'll find some that are your size ;-).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Epilogue)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 10:30:01 2002

Message no. 36 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Programming and Maximum Skill levels

> Lone Eagle writes:
>
> > How? Anything the corps can do the PC's might want to try, if it is
> > possible for the corp to create then the PC's might be capable of
reverse
> > engineering it, they might even be hired to do so. I have players
looking
> > at trading stock with the aim of asset stripping, I have players
wondering
> > what it takes to build/buy a matrix host, just a blue-3 but still...
> > ...
> > but there has to be a logic there, if one of my players can't do
something
> > they want to know why.
>
> At the risk of sounding like a cop out, I'll state the (in my opinion ;-))
> obvious answer to this pseudo-rant: it's only a game; don't get your
> knickers in a knot. :-)
>
> Not that you don't have valid points, though. The game, the rules, and the
> world (both real and game) could all do with a bit more consistency, if
you
> ask me. But the lacking of various things you're asking for is probably
more
> due to omission, or the large number of authors, than actual malicious
> intent to damage your game ;-). Many of the points have simply never come
up
> in a published product, and most probably never will.
>
> It's a game. It's only meant for fun. It's only supposed to be an
> approximation of the real world for entertainment purposes. Heck, if FASA
> (WizKids, FanPro) had developed a perfectly realistic model of the
universe,
> they could have sold it for a lot more than US$30 a pop, I can assure you
> ;-). Make up what's lacking - that's your job as a GM. Flesh out the
world.
> Focus on the bits your PCs are interested in. I've got rather obscure
rules
> for some odd metamagic techniques, but not for some obvious other ones
that
> should probably likewise exist. This is because my PCs were interested in
> some things, but not others. The game didn't cater for those things (hey,
it
> can't cater for everything ;-)), so I made it up. I didn't waste time
making
> up stuff that wasn't going to get used, though.
>
> The biggest problem, I think, is when various authors get together (or,
> rather, fail to do so, or fail to do their research properly) and create
> conflicting, or internally inconsistent sets of rules and game world
> circumstances. This is a rather poor error of omission, in my view, and it
> does create hassles sometimes. But, hey, that's what house rules are for
> ;-). Try some on, I'm sure you'll find some that are your size ;-).
>
> --
> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
> Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
> V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
> e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

I would have to agree with Lone Eagle on the issue of Player's wanting valid
reasons... and sometimes it is difficult to make something up that they will
accept. I had one group of players that wanted to start up an actual
corporation that provided security... SECURITY for gawd's sake. They
figured it would be a good way to get better guns... *sigh*... and I let
them... *sigh* ... but oh what a way to bleed nuyen... oh you want a license
to carry concealed, a LEGIT license.... 50K, you want a matrix node, figure
100K a point for blue, 1M a point for orange, 10M a point for red... I
mean, that group of players were getting bored with those characters, and
sending them off as NPCs with their own security company seemed like fun at
the time... but it was definately work for me.

I had other PCs that tried to play the currency trading game... that got
'nixed real quickly.

The point of my little rant there is that at times it makes it SO much
easier for a GM if he can simply point to a place in the rule book and say
there! see! right there!

Failing that Lone Eagle, just say "No, I think it may unbalance the game"...
as GM you aren't required to give reasons. It's nice if you do, but it
isn't actually in your job description. And remember how volatile the stock
market is... they really want to play that game, have a `corporate raider`
with deeper pockets swoop along and bankrupt them... it's not outside the
realm of plausibility, and lets face it, it happens all the time in the real
world. Just look at the stock market in the 80's... fortunes won, lost, and
traded back and forth.

Epilogue

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 10:30:04 2002

Message no. 37 At 09:35 AM 7/16/2002 +0000, Lone Eagle wrote:

>Anything the corps can do the PC's might want to try, if it is possible
>for the corp to create then the PC's might be capable of reverse
>engineering it, they might even be hired to do so. I have players looking
>at trading stock with the aim of asset stripping, I have players wondering
>what it takes to build/buy a matrix host, just a blue-3 but still...
>I have a pair of deckers, (one my PC, on the PC of the other GM) plus two
>other characters capable of participating in programming operations, I
>have people asking about building bleeding edge tech in the future.
>What makes the people at Fairlight so special? Why can they program the
>MPCP 12 when not even the most determined legal character could if the
>maximum skill were 8.

The same way a skilled surgeon does a heart transplant. They have the
equipment and personnel to do the job. All of those resources apply
modifiers to the surgeon's success test. A PC would be likened to a
skilled surgeon without the operating room, heart machine, assisting
surgeons, assisting nurses, etc, etc. All of

Or, you could compare it to the people that created the first atomic
bomb. They were geniuses, and they worked together as a team, and they had
the resources of a country to supply them with the resources they needed.

The Fairlight was created by a megacorporation. Mucho resources, mucho
geniuses.

PCs are not megacorporations. The fact that a megacorporation can do
something does not imply that a PC can do the same thing. It simply states
that a corporation with the resources and technology exceeding a 1st world
nation can do it.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
--

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 14:35:01 2002

Message no. 38 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Harrison" <scott@**********.com>

> > I'm not sure
> > the
> > average player wants to use an iterative method to calculate this stuff
> > during a gaming session.

> I am not sure what you mean by "iterative method ... session." Are you
> saying that people do not want to answer the question you posed
> earlier -- "What is the maximum rating this team can produce?" Or are
> you saying something along the lines of "If I need a system of Rating X
> what type of team would I need to produce that?"

They definately want an answer to the first question. A lot of players are
going to want an answer to the second question (in the special case that
they are the team leader).

I'm saying that people aren't going to want to use your method to answer
the first question either by translating the C code to a pen-and-paper
method or by breaking out a computer *during a gaming session*.

The second question has multiple answers for all X. You could rephase it
(to try and make the answer unique) as "If I need a rating X program,
what's the minimum team [subject to Y (restriction)] I would need to write
it?" but then you've have to define what you meant by minimum (smallest
number of poeple, lowest maximum skill, lowest average skill, etc.--which
you choose affects the answer's uniqueness) and what restrictions you
wanted to place on the team (also affects the answer's uniqueness). Under
the proper definition of minimum and under no restrictions my method can
straightforwardly answer this type of question. (In fact, it's basically
defined based on the minimum requirements I have for a team to write a
rating X program.)

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 15:15:02 2002

Message no. 39 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Graht" <davidb@****.imcprint.com>

> >What makes the people at Fairlight so special? Why can they program the
> >MPCP 12 when not even the most determined legal character could if the
> >maximum skill were 8.

The answer here of course is since the book doesn't SAY there's a maximum
skill there isn't and someone in the corp has a computer skill of 12. -- I
think this is unreasonable, really.

> The same way a skilled surgeon does a heart transplant. They have the
> equipment and personnel to do the job. All of those resources apply
> modifiers to the surgeon's success test. A PC would be likened to a
> skilled surgeon without the operating room, heart machine, assisting
> surgeons, assisting nurses, etc, etc. All of

<cough>Bullsh!t</cough>

Characters with SOTA OCEs, Time on a matrix host, and a microtronics
facility has all the tools a corp does. A decker/hacker enclave probably
has more members tha most corporate programing teams. [Organizing
"Software Engineers" has been likened to herding cats--enclaves
self-organize.]

Sure, make the TN huge, but make it possible. The thing I don't like about
the rules in Matrix is that they make it incredibly unlikely that rating 10
IC or utilities exist, but they scatter them around in hosts like
<something that occurs on hosts almost as often as rating 10+ IC>.

> Or, you could compare it to the people that created the first atomic
> bomb. They were geniuses, and they worked together as a team, and they
had
> the resources of a country to supply them with the resources they needed.

> The Fairlight was created by a megacorporation. Mucho resources, mucho
> geniuses.

Except by the rules, they'd have to have SOMEONE with a level 12 computer
skill, and going from the ratings in SR, there's probably NOONE like that.
There should probably be 100 or so 8, 12 or so 9, and one 10 in the entire
world for each skill.

Sure, the corps have more resouces than the characters. But they exist in
the same world as the characters and Matrix gives us the rules governing
what can and cannot be done in that world. It says it quite a few more
words that to program a rating X utilitity you must have skill level X.
SR3 gives us the rules regarding skills and it IMO STRONGLY implies that 10
is a maximum skill level. However, the rules also clearly state that IC of
ratings > 10 exist. These three "facts" make the world inconsistent. I
want to change the first fact (rating X needs skill X) to make the world
consistent. It agrees with my vision of that world the least.

> PCs are not megacorporations. The fact that a megacorporation can do
> something does not imply that a PC can do the same thing. It simply
states
> that a corporation with the resources and technology exceeding a 1st
world
> nation can do it.

Agreed, in principle. I don't let my PCs preform cybermantic magic. I
don't agree in this case.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 16:20:03 2002

Message no. 40 At 02:19 PM 7/16/2002 -0500, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Graht" <davidb@****.imcprint.com>
>
> > >What makes the people at Fairlight so special? Why can they program the
> > >MPCP 12 when not even the most determined legal character could if the
> > >maximum skill were 8.
>
>The answer here of course is since the book doesn't SAY there's a maximum
>skill there isn't and someone in the corp has a computer skill of 12. -- I
>think this is unreasonable, really.
>
> > The same way a skilled surgeon does a heart transplant. They have the
> > equipment and personnel to do the job. All of those resources apply
> > modifiers to the surgeon's success test. A PC would be likened to a
> > skilled surgeon without the operating room, heart machine, assisting
> > surgeons, assisting nurses, etc, etc. All of
>
><cough>Bullsh!t</cough>
>
>Characters with SOTA OCEs, Time on a matrix host, and a microtronics
>facility has all the tools a corp does.

Tools and resources are not the same.

>A decker/hacker enclave probably
>has more members tha most corporate programing teams. [Organizing
>"Software Engineers" has been likened to herding cats--enclaves
>self-organize.]

<cough>Bullshit!</cough>

A herd of cats will never self organize, no matter how many of them you
stuff into a room. In fact, the more of them you stuff into a room, the
increasing likelyhood that they will "disorganize".

;)

>Sure, make the TN huge, but make it possible. The thing I don't like about
>the rules in Matrix is that they make it incredibly unlikely that rating 10
>IC or utilities exist, but they scatter them around in hosts like
><something that occurs on hosts almost as often as rating 10+ IC>.
>
> > Or, you could compare it to the people that created the first atomic
> > bomb. They were geniuses, and they worked together as a team, and they
>had
> > the resources of a country to supply them with the resources they needed.
>
> > The Fairlight was created by a megacorporation. Mucho resources, mucho
> > geniuses.
>
>Except by the rules, they'd have to have SOMEONE with a level 12 computer
>skill, and going from the ratings in SR, there's probably NOONE like that.
>There should probably be 100 or so 8, 12 or so 9, and one 10 in the entire
>world for each skill.

My perception as a GM is that those rules apply to the characters. They
rule what a single, or small group, of characters can do. Megacorps
operate by a much different set of rules, because the are megacorps and not
characters. To me it is not at all unbelievable or unreasonable that a
megacorp can do what a character cannot, and vice versa.

I do find it unreasonable that a character could do what a megacorp
achieves with the investment of billions of dollars of resources.

>Sure, the corps have more resouces than the characters. But they exist in
>the same world as the characters

<cough>Bullshit!</cough>

The megacorps are worlds in and of themselves.

>and Matrix gives us the rules governing
>what can and cannot be done in that world.

The Matrix gives us the rules governing what the characters can and cannot
do in that world.

> It says it quite a few more
>words that to program a rating X utilitity you must have skill level X.

For a *character* to program a rating X utility.

The rules are character centric, because the game is designed for
characters. Where's the inconsistency? There are no rules for
megacorps. Where's the inconsistency?

>It agrees with my vision of that world the least.

Your game, your vision. Lone Eagle(?) asked for a possible explanation. I
gave him mine.

> > PCs are not megacorporations. The fact that a megacorporation can do
> > something does not imply that a PC can do the same thing. It simply
>states
> > that a corporation with the resources and technology exceeding a 1st
>world
> > nation can do it.
>
>Agreed, in principle. I don't let my PCs preform cybermantic magic. I
>don't agree in this case.

What's the difference?

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
--

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Downtym)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 19:10:00 2002

Message no. 41 On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Graht wrote:

> My perception as a GM is that those rules apply to the characters. They
> rule what a single, or small group, of characters can do. Megacorps
> operate by a much different set of rules, because the are megacorps and not
> characters. To me it is not at all unbelievable or unreasonable that a
> megacorp can do what a character cannot, and vice versa.

You act as if the megacorp is a living breathing organism in its own
right rather than a collection of individual components each
achieving some small amount of success that tends toward allowing the
larger creature to live.

> I do find it unreasonable that a character could do what a megacorp
> achieves with the investment of billions of dollars of resources.

That's what is so lovely about computers, they create a great baseline
for development. What tools are required for computer programming?
Time, a computer that runs a relevant OS, skill, and a compiler.

Now, in the Matrix book it specifically shows how a mega would have a
good advantage over a single individual in the way that larger hosts,
more memory, and a few other programs "assisting" in the creation
provides lower target numbers and more dice. Obviously these are
great boons to the software development that Megas do. Not to
mention the ability to hire and train large teams that are well
organized.

All of these factors lend themselves towards the megas being able to
have a much greater chance for success. However, it does not do away
with the blaring inconsistency and unfairness in such a system that
allows a mega to provide and create such great works of marvel that
your common character cannot.

> For a *character* to program a rating X utility.
>
> The rules are character centric, because the game is designed for
> characters. Where's the inconsistency? There are no rules for
> megacorps. Where's the inconsistency?

I find this to be an irritating line of logic. By stating this, you've
basically opened the door to state that an NPC working for a mega is
beyond the printed rules of Shadowrun. That not only can they fly, but
also that such meager things like being shot do not affect them.
Imagine if I swiped my hand and stated that no rules applied to the
NPC's that work for a Mega. Imagine if I began having NPC's that can
withstand panther assault cannon rounds and crush characters with
their minds.

Not only would I be lynched by my players, this wouldn't be much fun.

If you reach out to extend your statements to say that the rules are
meant to only define character behavior then you destroy the game. The
NPC's are not bound by any rules and the player is left at the mercy
of the GM. While we're tossing the rules out the window, why don't we
just go ahead and stop playing?

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 22:10:01 2002

Message no. 42 Epilogue writes:

> I would have to agree with Lone Eagle on the issue of Player's wanting
> valid reasons... and sometimes it is difficult to make something up that
> they will accept. I had one group of players that wanted to start up an
> actual corporation that provided security... SECURITY for gawd's sake.
> They figured it would be a good way to get better guns... *sigh*... and I
> let them... *sigh* ... but oh what a way to bleed nuyen... oh you want a
> license to carry concealed, a LEGIT license.... 50K, you want a matrix
> node, figure 100K a point for blue, 1M a point for orange, 10M a point for
> red... I mean, that group of players were getting bored with those
> characters, and sending them off as NPCs with their own security company
> seemed like fun at the time... but it was definately work for me.

I have to disagree with you there. Sure, it'd be _nice_ to have rules for
setting up a security company in SR. But think about this for a minute. SR
is a game in which the characters are (basically) freelance espionage agents
for hire. It is _not_ a game where the characters are security company
consultants and managers. So don't expect rules for the latter. Simple,
really. If you want to play "Security Company Analysts and Executives", then
go buy another game, don't expect to find rules in SR for it.

> I had other PCs that tried to play the currency trading game... that got
> 'nixed real quickly.

<sarcasm on>

Yeah, I can just see it now. FanPro is planing the "SR Currency Trading
Sourcebook" for realease at GenCon 2004. It'll be a real hot item, I'm sure
;-).

<sarcasm off>

Seriously, if you and/or your players want to delve into this sort of thing,
you can hardly whinge that the rules don't cover it.

> The point of my little rant there is that at times it makes it SO much
> easier for a GM if he can simply point to a place in the rule book and say
> there! see! right there!

It doesn't say in the rules that any given character cannot fly if they want
to, does it? So in your game, if I said "my character is going to jump out
the window and fly away", and you couldn't find a rule to the contrary, then
you'd allow it? When have you got an opening in your game coming up? <grin>

> <Snip comments on bankrupting cocky stock market trading PCs>

Hear hear!

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Tue Jul 16 22:30:01 2002

Message no. 43 Da Twink Daddy writes:

> The answer here of course is since the book doesn't SAY there's a maximum
> skill there isn't and someone in the corp has a computer skill of 12. -- I
> think this is unreasonable, really.

Huhn? Why? Getting a Rating 12 skill isn't all that difficult. If we assume
a Linked Attribute of 6 (fair enough for someone at the top of their field):

Rating Multiplier Cost Cumulative
1 1.5 1 1
2 1.5 3 4
3 1.5 4 8
4 1.5 6 14
5 1.5 7 21
6 1.5 9 30
7 2 14 44
8 2 16 60
9 2 18 78
10 2 20 98
11 2 22 120
12 2 24 144
13 2.5 32 176
14 2.5 35 211
15 2.5 37 248
16 2.5 40 288
17 2.5 42 330
18 2.5 45 375
19 2.5 47 422
20 2.5 50 472

Getting from a skill of zero to 12 costs around 144 Karma. Getting from 6 to
12 costs 144 - 30 = 114. Or around 100 Karma. How many PCs do you know who
have Karma Pools of around 10-12? If so, then they could have a skill of 12
if they wished to. How long did it take? In my experience, in game time,
it's usually only around 6-12 months. So there can be planty of other folks
out there (such as computer programmer nerds in big corps) who spend their
time getting their skills high, too. And with death not being around every
corner, they can afford to specialise a bit more, unlike the average runner.

> Characters with SOTA OCEs, Time on a matrix host, and a microtronics
> facility has all the tools a corp does. A decker/hacker enclave probably
> has more members tha most corporate programing teams. [Organizing
> "Software Engineers" has been likened to herding cats--enclaves
> self-organize.]

That's fair enough. A hacker enclave, if all the particpants work on the
same task, could very probably get something organised in less time than a
corp team. However, an individual, while able to likely do something
similar, would take extraordinarily long to do so.

> Sure, make the TN huge, but make it possible. The thing I don't like about
> the rules in Matrix is that they make it incredibly unlikely that rating 10
> IC or utilities exist, but they scatter them around in hosts like
> <something that occurs on hosts almost as often as rating 10+ IC>.

I can see your point here. Limiting what the character can do by the Rating
of their skill is absolute. As a comparison, a sammy with a skill of 6 in
guns can at least attempt to make that shot off the trolls horn, round the
corner, through the mirror, into the finger sized hole between the armoured
window and the top of the car (thanks to a smoking passenger), off the ring
finger of the smoking passenger who's just at that moment flicking ash out
the gap, into the back of the vehicle, and into the chest of the target, all
while falling from the 31st floor and battling with an angry air elemental,
and holding onto the clients pet pooch (who just loves licking faces). Yeah,
they'll need like a 204 or something, but at least it's possible. It's not
possible, however, for a Decker with a Computer skill of 6 to make anything
over Rating 6. There's a discrepancy in the game mechanics.

> SR3 gives us the rules regarding skills and it IMO STRONGLY implies that 10
> is a maximum skill level.

It does? I've never ever been given to even begin to think that. How did you
form this view?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Bryan Pow)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Wed Jul 17 02:15:02 2002

Message no. 44 While in SR it may imply that a character cannot have a skill above 10, it
says also that you can Specialise. Specialisation is something that a
corporate programmer would undoubtably do since they don't need to deck, So
they would have Computer 10 (Programming 20).
... and since they are corporate types, with no interest in combat outside a
console, they would most likely have a special rules specifically for the
quirks of Programming. Kind of like Maneuvers for Martial Arts. Things such
as Perfect Code, Quick Write, and so forth. They would also have Signature
Programs, like Signature Weapons. So they would have
Computer 10
Programming 15
SP- Black IC (psychotropic-Judas) 20

THere are advanced Combat Rules cos combat is what runners do. Programming
IC is not what shadowrunners do, it is what Coprorate Programmers do. Above
should be considered as being from the IC Companion a sumplement of the RPG
Program, a game where you play Coprorate Programmers.
Now when the guys who would play this game start winging about inconsistant
rules where shadowrunners do things in combat that Programmers can't.......I
will have to push my limits of polite sarcasm to a new level (His Sarcasm
Power level is Huge! He must be a Super Sarcasm!)

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Wed Jul 17 05:45:05 2002

Message no. 45 >From: Downtym <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>
> > The rules are character centric, because the game is designed for
> > characters. Where's the inconsistency? There are no rules for
> > megacorps. Where's the inconsistency?
>
>I find this to be an irritating line of logic. By stating this, you've
>basically opened the door to state that an NPC working for a mega is
>beyond the printed rules of Shadowrun. That not only can they fly, but
>also that such meager things like being shot do not affect them.
>Imagine if I swiped my hand and stated that no rules applied to the
>NPC's that work for a Mega. Imagine if I began having NPC's that can
>withstand panther assault cannon rounds and crush characters with
>their minds.
>
>Not only would I be lynched by my players, this wouldn't be much fun.
>
>If you reach out to extend your statements to say that the rules are
>meant to only define character behavior then you destroy the game. The
>NPC's are not bound by any rules and the player is left at the mercy
>of the GM. While we're tossing the rules out the window, why don't we
>just go ahead and stop playing?

Whoa! someone's picked up a good head of steam!
Now, I agree that the rules must apply to everyone, otherwise there is very
little point in having them (well, almost everyone, there are exceptions to
every rule, some people just have to be different to prove to the players
that "...there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in
your philosophy Horatio." (not dead right, I don't think so anyway but.. you
get the idea)) Megacorps may be able to pump billions into a research
project but it still takes someone like Miles Bennett Dyson to come up with
the goods, remember T2: Judgement Day,
"The man most directly responsible was Miles Bennett Dyson..."
the responsability for skynet didn't rest with Cyberdyne systems, Dyson will
have been the one picking up the Nobel, Cyberdyne will has been hovering but
it's the individual that makes the advance, if FastJack, Dodger, Redline et
al can't make the advance (without Maegera or whatever her name is at least)
why should some corp punk be able to. lets face it if they wanted to they
could easily use the corp's resources anyway, including spoofing the
production line so that it made the chips for them!!!!

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Wed Jul 17 05:50:12 2002

Message no. 46 According to Graht, on Tue, 16 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> >A decker/hacker enclave probably
> >has more members tha most corporate programing teams. [Organizing
> >"Software Engineers" has been likened to herding cats--enclaves
> >self-organize.]
>
> <cough>Bullshit!</cough>
>
> A herd of cats will never self organize, no matter how many of them you
> stuff into a room. In fact, the more of them you stuff into a room, the
> increasing likelyhood that they will "disorganize".

I think that was DTD's point -- the software engineers are the cats,
while the people making up these "enclaves" are not software engineers.

> My perception as a GM is that those rules apply to the characters. They
> rule what a single, or small group, of characters can do. Megacorps
> operate by a much different set of rules, because the are megacorps and
> not characters. To me it is not at all unbelievable or unreasonable that
> a megacorp can do what a character cannot, and vice versa.

I have to agree with DTD here -- the rules, as they are written, apply to
anyone writing a program, for the simple reason that they make or imply no
exceptions at all. So for a software megacorp to release a rating 12
utility, it would need someone with a skill of 12+. Now if the rules had
left a little loophole, such as hinting that there are ways of artificially
increasing your skill rating, but that this is far too expensive for anyone
but a major corporation, _then_ IMHO you'd have a point.

> I do find it unreasonable that a character could do what a megacorp
> achieves with the investment of billions of dollars of resources.

There, though, I agree with you, up to a certain point.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Wed Jul 17 10:25:01 2002

Message no. 47 At 07:09 PM 7/16/2002 -0400, Downtym wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Graht wrote:
>
> > My perception as a GM is that those rules apply to the characters. They
> > rule what a single, or small group, of characters can do. Megacorps
> > operate by a much different set of rules, because the are megacorps and not
> > characters. To me it is not at all unbelievable or unreasonable that a
> > megacorp can do what a character cannot, and vice versa.
>
>You act as if the megacorp is a living breathing organism in its own
>right rather than a collection of individual components each
>achieving some small amount of success that tends toward allowing the
>larger creature to live.

Actually, I view it as both :)

> > I do find it unreasonable that a character could do what a megacorp
> > achieves with the investment of billions of dollars of resources.
>
>That's what is so lovely about computers, they create a great baseline
>for development. What tools are required for computer programming?
>Time, a computer that runs a relevant OS, skill, and a compiler.

Then perhaps the problem isn't that the characters will never be smart
enough, but that they don't have access to the mainframes that the megas
use to create high rated IC.

My explanation for the fact that megas can make Rating 12+ programs, and
characters can't, is that the characters aren't megas.

> > For a *character* to program a rating X utility.
> >
> > The rules are character centric, because the game is designed for
> > characters. Where's the inconsistency? There are no rules for
> > megacorps. Where's the inconsistency?
>
>I find this to be an irritating line of logic. By stating this, you've
>basically opened the door to state that an NPC working for a mega is
>beyond the printed rules of Shadowrun.

NPC: Non Player *Character*.

The rules still apply to NPCs.

Yes, I know, it sounds like there's a paradox. NPCs can't create rating 12
IC, but Megas can. But my view is that there are a set of rules for
individuals, and that large groups (megas for example) aren't necessarily
restricted by those rules.

Maybe those advanced programs are like the space shuttle (or choose another
complex advanced machine). A single person couldn't possibly build the
space shuttle. Building the space shuttle required many, many highly
skilled people representing a large breadth and depth of knowledge and
ingenuity. Maybe those advanced programs required similar resources. Per
the rules a single person needs a skill rating equal to or higher then the
rating of the program he is trying to create. Maybe mega IC is created in
much the same way that the space shuttle was created, by a large group of
highly skilled and ingenious people who create and assemble a set of
components to create a whole.

One person, one set of rules. Many people, different set of rules. My
view of Shadowrun only reflects real life.

If that explanation doesn't float your boat, try this one.

Perhaps as IC encounters deckers, it learns from mistakes, or from the
deckers who attack it (be it corporate deckers testing the IC, or
shadowrunners hacking the IC). The programmers pass this on to the next
batch of IC. In effect, each generation of IC contributes to the next
generation of IC over time. Pretty soon the IC is creating the next
generation of IC and the megacorporation programmers take on a role similar
to an OBGYN. The mega's programmers aren't writing the programs anymore,
and therefor aren't required to have a skill rating equal to or greater
than the rating of the IC that's being created.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
--

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Wed Jul 17 11:20:01 2002

Message no. 48 >From: Downtym

>As to worrying about the IC that the PC's are shredding, it's a matter
>of continuity. Part of the breaking point has been that I haven't seen
>a piece of IC below rating 8 (!!!!) on a single decking run in SR3.
>And this is on everything from Green to Red systems. I seriously begin
>to question how vast the computing powers of some of the mom-and-pop
>corps that I will be hitting soon are given that IC seems to flow as
>freely as water. And as a side note, I wonder how much their equipment
>is worth on the black market given the sheer volume of equipment
>needed to run an appreciable amount of IC...

Actually, I put a lot of lower rating IC in my systems. However, I rarely
have the PCs actually fight it. Decking as written has waaaayyyy too many
dice rolls IMO. So I treat lower rating IC just as I do pedestrians. It's
there. If you, the big bad PC, want to frag with it, it will try to fight
back, but will likely get smoked. Mid range IC is like street gangers, and
big IC is like corp security and such. Whenever I think IC is not even
going to last one pass with a PC, I offer them the option to ignore it by
having it not bother them. Just another pedestrian going about its job,
ignoring things that look like a bigger boy's job. Heck...if the IC would
not even be able to see through their masking, why bother throwing dice
around...describe the cool construct as it drifts by and move on. Having
PCs roll dice when there is no chance of them losing is as useless as having
them roll dice when there is no chance of them winning...both slow the game
down, break the mood, and can be better resolved with staight roleplaying.
Only those situations that could go either way need dice. This speeds up
the game so much I don't know how I ran it before I started doing this. As
to mom & pop hosts...if you hit nmore than one big piece of IC, your GM
fragged up. Period. That is the point. Mom & Pop have maybe one big gun
under the counter, maybe one big spirit on call, and one big piece of IC.
They cannot afford more...but then, the kind of people who will have much
reason to knock Mom & Pop won't always succeed against those measures. If
you as a PC are taking on Mom & Pop, there are two reasons. One: you just
started out and it will be a challenge...roll the dice and stay smart. Two:
you are doing some matrix legwork and think some info may be in the
system...roleplay the search. Leave the dice in the bag. You will be in
and out, and probably have edited the logs so no one knows you were ever
there. In my game, you don't roll dice in such situations. Of course...I
have been known to lull my players into a false sense of security with this.
They are rolling through Mom & Pop's host, checking files and searching
for info, when suddenly I say, "What's your Masking?", and roll some dice
behind my screen. Some days...nothing happens...just keeping them paranoid.
Other days...oops, Mom & Pop's is a cover for something bigger, and the
host just bounced. :>

Korishinzo
--if it makes the game go more smoothly, it's usually a good rule

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Wed Jul 17 11:25:01 2002

Message no. 49 >From: Graht <davidb@****.imcprint.com>
<Snip>
>Maybe those advanced programs are like the space shuttle (or choose another
>complex advanced machine). A single person couldn't possibly build the
>space shuttle. Building the space shuttle required many, many highly
>skilled people representing a large breadth and depth of knowledge and
>ingenuity. Maybe those advanced programs required similar resources. Per
>the rules a single person needs a skill rating equal to or higher then the
>rating of the program he is trying to create. Maybe mega IC is created in
>much the same way that the space shuttle was created, by a large group of
>highly skilled and ingenious people who create and assemble a set of
>components to create a whole.

I have to disagree, one man could build a space shuttle, it's just a
question of engineering after all... given the facilities to do it (machine
tools, a foundry, a space large enough to assemble it and cranes big enough
to lift the parts (which even IRL are radio controlled) plus a means of
creating the circuit boards. but all of this is available to reasonably
small companies and even private individuals if they have enough money,
granted if he worked on it solo it would take him much longer to complete
than if he even had some unskilled labour but...
How big is your average corporate programming team? 6 people? 8? right well
what if everyone in my campaign decided they were bored and wanted to play a
decker? that makes a team of nine deckers, who between them shouldn't have a
problem slyly stealing equivalent resources to a corporate team, so rather
than having five to seven people with programming at say six and one at
seven you have nine at six or seven, (within a fairly short time) what is
the difference between the two groups, why can the corporate team build
rating 12, 14, 20 programs while the characters can't go any higher than 7?
what if the team decides that they're going to go in and raid the corp while
the team are working, to extract them to get their utilities hicked,
suddenly the faceless team become NPCs do they suddenly find that they can't
write anything higher than rating seven programs?

If you go with the second option, a decker has mainframe time and money to
burn, why can't he test his rating 6 attack: deadly on numerous IC, record
the results and feed them back into the program, he's trying to evolve his
utilities but no matter how much data he has there is no way that he can
increase the rating of the program beyond his programming specialisation.
why not? he has the same resources, he's doing the same things, why doesn't
his programming work?

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

From:	shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject:	Programming and Maximum Skill levels
Date:	Wed Jul 17 11:50:00 2002

Message no. 50 At 03:28 PM 7/17/2002 +0000, Lone Eagle wrote:
>>From: Graht <davidb@****.imcprint.com>
><Snip>
>>Maybe those advanced programs are like the space shuttle (or choose
>>another complex advanced machine). A single person couldn't possibly
>>build the space shuttle. Building the space shuttle required many, many
>>highly skilled people representing a large breadth and depth of knowledge
>>and ingenuity. Maybe those advanced programs required similar
>>resources. Per the rules a single person needs a skill rating equal to
>>or higher then the rating of the program he is trying to create. Maybe
>>mega IC is created in much the same way that the space shuttle was
>>created, by a large group of highly skilled and ingenious people who
>>create and assemble a set of components to create a whole.
>
>I have to disagree, one man could build a space shuttle, it's just a
>question of engineering after all... given the facilities to do it
>(machine tools, a foundry, a space large enough to assemble it and cranes
>big enough to lift the parts (which even IRL are radio controlled) plus a
>means of creating the circuit boards.

You're kidding right?

> but all of this is available to reasonably small companies and even
> private individuals if they have enough money,

Sure, if one person could purchase and employ all of the companies and
corporations that contributed towards designing and building the space
shuttle. Sure...

> granted if he worked on it solo it would take him much longer to
> complete than if he even had some unskilled labour but...

If such an individual existed, the shuttle he created would be so obsolete
that it would be pointless. Don't forget, SOTA enters into this too.

>How big is your average corporate programming team? 6 people? 8?

Given that many corporations have adopted the average military ratio of
7:1, yes I would guess that that's about right for a programming team. How
many programming teams does it take to create IC with a rating of
12? Let's see, how many programmers does Microsoft employ? I'd guess that
it's probably in that ballpark, i.e., in the order of hundreds, if not a
couple thousand, programmers.

> right well what if everyone in my campaign decided they were bored and
> wanted to play a decker? that makes a team of nine deckers, who between
> them shouldn't have a problem slyly stealing equivalent resources to a
> corporate team,

In other words, they wouldn't have a problem stealing an entire corporation.

> so rather than having five to seven people with programming at say six
> and one at seven you have nine at six or seven, (within a fairly short
> time) what is the difference between the two groups, why can the
> corporate team build rating 12, 14, 20 programs while the characters
> can't go any higher than 7?

Read my previous posts.

>If you go with the second option, a decker has mainframe time and money to
>burn, why can't he test his rating 6 attack: deadly on numerous IC, record
>the results and feed them back into the program, he's trying to evolve his
>utilities but no matter how much data he has there is no way that he can
>increase the rating of the program beyond his programming specialisation.
>why not? he has the same resources, he's doing the same things, why
>doesn't his programming work?

A decker wouldn't have time to burn. If he took the time to do what a mega
can do, his IC would be worthless by the time he released it.

And he will never, ever, have the same resources as a mega. That's like
saying a spark plug can do everything a car can do if given enough time. A
tree cannot be a forest. A bird can't be a flock. A character can't be a
mega.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
--

Message no. 51 >From: "Lone Eagle"

> >2. For corporations/goverments/datahavens/etc: they have whatever >
> >ratings of IC and utilities they need to challenge the person coming >
> >in the door.

>How? Anything the corps can do the PC's might want to try, if it is
> >possible for the corp to create then the PC's might be capable of
> >reverse engineering it, they might even be hired to do so. I have
> >players looking at trading stock with the aim of asset stripping, I >have
>players wondering what it takes to build/buy a matrix host, just >a blue-3
>but still...
>I have a pair of deckers, (one my PC, on the PC of the other GM) plus >two
>other characters capable of participating in programming >operations, I
>have people asking about building bleeding edge tech in >the future. What
>makes the people at Fairlight so special? Why can >they program the MPCP 12
>when not even the most determined legal >character could if the maximum
>skill were 8. Simply doubling the >computer skill doesn't work, it allows
>average programmers to program >nearly SOTA utilities, there must be some
>reason within the rules as >listed or with minimum of modification to those
>rules, you could claim >of course that Leonardo da Vinci created most of
>the highest rated >stuff, I don't know if his stats are listed anywhere but
>from Black >Madonna he seems to be able to do more or less what he wants
>with the
>SOTA curve. but there has to be a logic there, if one of my players >can't
>do something they want to know why.

Really? You think your PCs can just up and reverse engineer the killer IC
they hit at Wuxing last week? Cool. I expect you'll have the sourcecode
for WinXP in my inbox, say, Friday by 5:00? No? Of course not. (Okay,
that was way sarcastic, but my players have tried this crap and it angers
me. I'll stop taking that out on you know. :> )

Your players want to write the utilities and the IC of tomorrow? They want
to run a Matrix host? They want to push the SOTA curve? Make new combat
drugs and invent some cyber no one else has? Fine. Invest a bunch of nuyen
in a good SIN, and go apply for a job at Corp FutureGear. Or take up
consulting in one of those fields. Whatever. Just kiss the whole idea of
shadowrunning goodbye. Bacause they will not be able to, A: find the time,
and B: afford the risks. Active shadowrunners CAN NOT do these things.
Period. Shadowrunning requires a number of pursuits in downtime that are
not conducive to spending hours in a lab/cubicle inventing stuff. Do they
think Street Etiquette stays current while they spend six months behind
closed doors? No fragging way. They think Lucky Loisa, the troll bartender
at ClubNeoFreak, is going to be as chummy after they don't stop by and chat
for half a year? Nope. Is Mr. J going to be calling on people who have not
been active on the scene for the year it took to successfully decompile
Wuxing's new IC code? No. Is the power company going to ignore the illegal
power draw of massive proportion over in that abandoned shopping district
for any length of time at all? Are you kidding me? Oh wait...the host is
legal. Better hope no one decks it. Probably ought to write some IC for
it. What, a run, right now? I can't, I have to code for a couple of months
here. What do you mean the power bill is due? Aren't we getting any
advertisers to pay for our host? No? What, now we need to go out and drum
up customers as well? This legit stuff sucks! Oh. what now? Someone broke
into and stole one of out servers?!? Where was security? Oh, it was
runners. Frag this gig. Tell Mr. J I'll be right over.

Runners CAN NOT compete with hundreds of thousands of wage slaves, with R&D
budgets in the millions, and 50+ hours a week of work. Not now, not ever.
And that is where big IC, big utilities, and anything remotely SOTA comes
from. I know, I know, you want to know about that killer Attack-Deadly-9
that that decker contact sold you last week. It was one of a kind. A
killer app written by a great hacker. Source code? Ummm no. I didn't save
it. Once people see it, it'll be obsolete anyway. I am working on a better
one anyway. That one was inefficient. Has a recursive loop that can run
way too long on certain Orange systems...not sure why. *shrug* Hey
man...you want mass produced drek, you gotta buy from some of them Fushi
boys that went freelance after the bust up. They got the resources for that
drek. I just write what's in my soul. And so on.

If your players want a game where they develope SOTA gear, fine. But they
won't be shadowrunners. And if they are shadowrunners....they are too busy
to do R & D. They are field testers.

Korishinzo
--thinking that PCs CANNOT do what corps do, or they wouldn't need to
shadowrun

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Message no. 52 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Pow" <bryan_pow@*******.com>

> While in SR it may imply that a character cannot have a skill above 10,
it
> says also that you can Specialise.

Sure, but I take some descriptions do apply to specializations as well, for
the most part. I believe a specialization of 12 much more than I believe a
general skill of 12.

> Specialisation is something that a
> corporate programmer would undoubtably do since they don't need to deck,
So
> they would have Computer 10 (Programming 20).

I think that a lot of IC writers do deck. They work security, patroling
R-, L- or, PL-TGs, or responding to alarms on a host. IC is what they
write to make their job easier.

Programmers that don't deck make applications and maybe some utilities (the
ones that could conceivably be used legaly) but hardly ever over rating 4.

> ... and since they are corporate types, with no interest in combat
outside a
> console, they would most likely have a special rules specifically for the
> quirks of Programming. Kind of like Maneuvers for Martial Arts. Things
such
> as Perfect Code, Quick Write, and so forth.

World of difference. Being a programmer, I can say that these basically
don't exist.

> They would also have Signature
> Programs, like Signature Weapons. So they would have
> Computer 10
> Programming 15
> SP- Black IC (psychotropic-Judas) 20

If they are a corporate programmer, I don't think they are ever going to
get a signature program [I'll beleive there could exist] because their corp
is going to give them a lot of varying jobs, and one type of IC won't cut
it. If they are a decker, it's more important to have a lot of mediocre
utilities than one really good one (and get completely hosed when the host
uses scramble IC or whatever you aren't strong in.)

> THere are advanced Combat Rules cos combat is what runners do.

Combat isn't what runners do. Combat is what thugs and gangs do. Get out
of the streets and into the shadows, my friend. There are advance combat
rules because the players wanted them. [Probably because SR is more about
combat than programming.]

> Programming
> IC is not what shadowrunners do, it is what Coprorate Programmers do.

Programming utilities is what deckers do. Sometimes you just don't have
the cash to buy a Deception-6 (Sneak 6, Optimized) or AttackD-8 (Targeting,
Optimization, Stealth 8) or Medic-4 (DINAB 4). When they don't have the
cash, they only recourse is to write it themselves.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 53 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Damion Milliken" <dam01@***.edu.au>

> > The answer here of course is since the book doesn't SAY there's a
> > maximum skill there isn't and someone in the corp has a computer skill
of
> > 12. -- I think this is unreasonable, really.

> Huhn? Why? Getting a Rating 12 skill isn't all that difficult. If we
> assume a Linked Attribute of 6 (fair enough for someone at the top of
their
> field):

[Snip: table]

> Getting from a skill of zero to 12 costs around 144 Karma. Getting from 6
> to 12 costs 144 - 30 = 114. Or around 100 Karma. How many PCs do you know
> who have Karma Pools of around 10-12? If so, then they could have a skill
of
> 12 if they wished to. How long did it take? In my experience, in game
time,
> it's usually only around 6-12 months. So there can be planty of other
> folks out there (such as computer programmer nerds in big corps) who
spend
> their time getting their skills high, too. And with death not being
around
> every corner, they can afford to specialise a bit more, unlike the
average
> runner.

It even become less costly in the case of someone with an intelligence
higher than 6 (exceptional attribute edge or their one attribute that the
player is gonna increase to attribute max [or both]), plus a couple of
cerebral boosters and maybe a mnemonic enhancer. [This is all assuming we
are trying to get computer 12.]

I understand the karma cost isn't that great, and that specialization is
more likely to happen inside a corp. But, llok at the descriptions of the
skill levels on p. 98-99 of SR3. Given those descriptions, how many people
in the world do you really think have a skill of 8? 9? 10? 12? My answers
are ~100, ~12, maybe 1, and 0.

Also, just as something tangental to the conversation. I think that most
NPC gain karma much slower than PCs. Their lives aren't <can't find the
right adjective> enough to gain the karma. PCs are more likely to be in a
life-or-death situation, they get double-crossed more, they have to make
more moral decisions, they stretch their abilities more.

> That's fair enough. A hacker enclave, if all the particpants work on the
> same task, could very probably get something organised in less time than
> a corp team. However, an individual, while able to likely do something
> similar, would take extraordinarily long to do so.

Yeah, which is my rules only allow teams to produce stuff over their
computer skill, though if a single person really wanted to, I'd make up
some rules for that. But, after I explained my rules to my players, they'd
probably just find a matrix gang/enclave to get help from. Or, they might
be able to write enough intelligent Frames/Agents/Constructs/SKs to make
their team big enough to write programs up to twice their skill.

> > Sure, make the TN huge, but make it possible.

> I can see your point here. As a comparison, a sammy with a skill of 6 in
> guns can at least attempt to make that shot off the trolls horn, round
> the corner, through the mirror, into the finger sized hole between the
> armoured window and the top of the car (thanks to a smoking passenger),
off the
> ring finger of the smoking passenger who's just at that moment flicking
ash
> out the gap, into the back of the vehicle, and into the chest of the
target,
> all while falling from the 31st floor and battling with an angry air
> elemental, and holding onto the clients pet pooch (who just loves licking
faces).
> Yeah, they'll need like a 204 or something, but at least it's possible.
It's
> not possible, however, for a Decker with a Computer skill of 6 to make
> anything over Rating 6. There's a discrepancy in the game mechanics.

Well, I might not even allow for him/her to roll for this. Even with a
high guns skill, he just won't know how to even attempt the shot. [Well,
except for aim somewhere on the trolls' horn.] But, my point is the same.
It's acceptable (and some might say not that uncommon) for a sammy to
attempt something with a TN higher than his skill and programmers don't get
to do that in this case.

Take the slightly more believable case of trying to shoot the target while
he speeds away on his motorcycle and you are falling from a very high cliff
in the middle of the night (out of city--no street lights) in the pouring
rain (no stars either) with a serious wound (physical and stun) under the
affect of a chaos spell while being beaten by a nature spirit (where do you
think the serious wound came from!) The vision, speed, and wound modifiers
will easily push the TN up to the teens, this could be as bad as 25. Yet,
they still could attempt it because they know where they need to aim.

[Look like he's in deep drek right? Why's he shooting at the guy instead
of fighting the spirit? 'Cuase his shaman friend is about to take control
of the spirit next action and use it to slow and finally stop his fall, and
then rush over with a healing spell.]

> > SR3 gives us the rules regarding skills and it IMO STRONGLY implies
> > that 10 is a maximum skill level.

> It does? I've never ever been given to even begin to think that. How did
> you form this view?

p 98-99, SR3.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 54 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Graht" <davidb@****.imcprint.com>

> >>Maybe those advanced programs are like the space shuttle (or choose
> >>another complex advanced machine). A single person couldn't possibly
> >>build the space shuttle.

> >I have to disagree, one man could build a space shuttle, it's just a
> >question of engineering after all...

> You're kidding right?

No he's not, and I agree with him. It's possible for one man to design a
rocket--even one of that size. The resources are harder to get to (LOTS of
money required) and the time may be prohibative. [200 people work a lot
faster than 1.]

> >How big is your average corporate programming team? 6 people? 8?

> Given that many corporations have adopted the average military ratio of
> 7:1, yes I would guess that that's about right for a programming team.
How
> many programming teams does it take to create IC with a rating of
> 12?

So, now you are saying that it might take multiple teams? That's
interesting...

> Let's see, how many programmers does Microsoft employ? I'd guess that
> it's probably in that ballpark, i.e., in the order of hundreds, if not a
> couple thousand, programmers.

I interned with MS and I'd be surprised if they had 1000 *programers*.
But, you are in the ballpark.

> > that makes a team of nine deckers, who between
> > them shouldn't have a problem slyly stealing equivalent resources to a
> > corporate team,

> In other words, they wouldn't have a problem stealing an entire
corporation.

Whatever. You don't need the entire corp, just it's Matrix division.
Plus, you don't need all that. They are probably developing somewhere on
the order of 100 programs in various stages of development. So, you steal
the equlivalent of 1% of either Matrix division. That's not gonna be TOO
hard. [Difficult: YES].

> > what is the difference between the two groups, why can the
> > corporate team build rating 12, 14, 20 programs while the characters
> > can't go any higher than 7?
>
> Read my previous posts.

I did, if you haven't noticed. I don't think you have adequately explained
WHAT tools/resources a mega is going to have that a team of experienced
deckers can't steal that will have any bearing on the RATING of the
programs they can create. [TN sure -- I'll give you that one in a second.]

> >If you go with the second option, a decker has mainframe time and money
to
> >burn, why can't he test his rating 6 attack: deadly on numerous IC,
record
> >the results and feed them back into the program, he's trying to evolve
his
> >utilities but no matter how much data he has there is no way that he can
> >increase the rating of the program beyond his programming
specialisation.
> >why not? he has the same resources, he's doing the same things, why
> >doesn't his programming work?

> A decker wouldn't have time to burn. If he took the time to do what a
mega
> can do, his IC would be worthless by the time he released it.

Well, except for the nice little rule that SOTA doesn't apply to programs
in progress. As far as time constraints go I agree that megas will be able
to make probably 20-100 rating X programs in the time it takes a single
decker to create a rating X programs. However, I still disagree that the
megas are going to be able to make something of a rating that players just
can't reproduce.

> And he will never, ever, have the same resources as a mega. That's like
> saying a spark plug can do everything a car can do if given enough time.
A
> tree cannot be a forest. A bird can't be a flock. A character can't be
a
> mega.

The first example (spark plug -> car) is comparing apples to oranges. All
the components of a mega are the same, they are human(oid).

A tree will become a forest given enough time, and 2 birds will become a
flock given enough time.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 55 On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> > You're kidding right?
>
> No he's not, and I agree with him. It's possible for one man to design a
> rocket--even one of that size. The resources are harder to get to (LOTS of
> money required) and the time may be prohibative. [200 people work a lot
> faster than 1.]

Ummm. To attach the tiles, just the tiles took Nasa somthing like 3 years
working 24/6(And I don't think it was just one guy....because god doesn't
work for nasa ;) ). That's not including the dev time to figure out how to
attach rigid glass based tile to flexible aluminum airframes.

I'd challenge I could give one man all the pieces to the shuttle with all
the knowledge necessary and he'd probably die before he got done.

> > >How big is your average corporate programming team? 6 people? 8?
>
> > Given that many corporations have adopted the average military ratio of
> > 7:1, yes I would guess that that's about right for a programming team.
> How
> > many programming teams does it take to create IC with a rating of
> > 12?
>
> So, now you are saying that it might take multiple teams? That's
> interesting...
>

Almost all complex systems programming gets done by smaller teams working
on well defined modules these days. A good example of this is from the
paper on developing Windows NT to Windows 2000.
http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix-win2000/invitedtalks/lucovsky_html/sld001.htm
NT 3.1 ended up being around 200 programmers (Not including all the
support)
NT 2000 had around 1400.

> > In other words, they wouldn't have a problem stealing an entire
> corporation.
>
> Whatever. You don't need the entire corp, just it's Matrix division.
> Plus, you don't need all that. They are probably developing somewhere on
> the order of 100 programs in various stages of development. So, you steal
> the equlivalent of 1% of either Matrix division. That's not gonna be TOO
> hard. [Difficult: YES].
>
> > > what is the difference between the two groups, why can the
> > > corporate team build rating 12, 14, 20 programs while the characters
> > > can't go any higher than 7?
> >
> > Read my previous posts.
>
> I did, if you haven't noticed. I don't think you have adequately explained
> WHAT tools/resources a mega is going to have that a team of experienced
> deckers can't steal that will have any bearing on the RATING of the
> programs they can create. [TN sure -- I'll give you that one in a second.]
>

Legal equpiment, access to fabs to create custom hardware on a large
scale/create prototypes - Take a look at how much a modern fabrication
plant costs, and how much it depreciates in value and then tell me a team
is just going to 'rip one off'
Electricity, if you're running a lot of stolen equipment someone is going
to notice, or you're going to have trouble keeping a good supply if you're
somewhere so decrepid they don't notice.

>
> Well, except for the nice little rule that SOTA doesn't apply to programs
> in progress. As far as time constraints go I agree that megas will be able
> to make probably 20-100 rating X programs in the time it takes a single
> decker to create a rating X programs. However, I still disagree that the
> megas are going to be able to make something of a rating that players just
> can't reproduce.

What if IC research involves seeding genetic algorithms and culling off IC
that develops along lines that aren't productive. Don't think along the
lines of the developers manually typing in lines of IC, they're probably
developing programs to develop programs etc.

Megas have huge legitimate sources of computing power. Deckers don't,
people are going to notice if the load in their processing nodes spike.

>
> A tree will become a forest given enough time, and 2 birds will become a
> flock given enough time.

If you only start with two birds you're going to end up with a flock of
somthing but I doubt it will be birds anymore.

Message no. 56 At 01:11 PM 7/17/2002 -0500, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Graht" <davidb@****.imcprint.com>
>
> > >>Maybe those advanced programs are like the space shuttle (or choose
> > >>another complex advanced machine). A single person couldn't possibly
> > >>build the space shuttle.
>
> > >I have to disagree, one man could build a space shuttle, it's just a
> > >question of engineering after all...
>
> > You're kidding right?
>
>No he's not, and I agree with him. It's possible for one man to design a
>rocket--even one of that size.

The space shuttle is not a rocket. The complexity of the space shuttle is
almost mind numbing.

> The resources are harder to get to (LOTS of
>money required) and the time may be prohibative. [200 people work a lot
>faster than 1.]

One person couldn't do it due to the complexity of the space
shuttle. There is not a single person alive who could design and build all
of the elements of the space shuttle.

> > >How big is your average corporate programming team? 6 people? 8?
>
> > Given that many corporations have adopted the average military ratio of
> > 7:1, yes I would guess that that's about right for a programming team.
>How
> > many programming teams does it take to create IC with a rating of
> > 12?
>
>So, now you are saying that it might take multiple teams? That's
>interesting...

Lets see, last time I checked corporations are made up of multiple
departments, which can be comprised of multiple teams. I said that when I
started. I didn't start saying it with my latest post.

> > Let's see, how many programmers does Microsoft employ? I'd guess that
> > it's probably in that ballpark, i.e., in the order of hundreds, if not a
> > couple thousand, programmers.
>
>I interned with MS and I'd be surprised if they had 1000 *programers*.
>But, you are in the ballpark.
>
> > > that makes a team of nine deckers, who between
> > > them shouldn't have a problem slyly stealing equivalent resources to a
> > > corporate team,
>
> > In other words, they wouldn't have a problem stealing an entire
>corporation.
>
>Whatever. You don't need the entire corp, just it's Matrix division.
>Plus, you don't need all that. They are probably developing somewhere on
>the order of 100 programs in various stages of development. So, you steal
>the equlivalent of 1% of either Matrix division. That's not gonna be TOO
>hard. [Difficult: YES].

Now you're supporting my view. In my opinion many can do what one cannot,
and just because one cannot do something does not mean that many cannot do
that same thing.

The original question was to the effect: How can rating 12 IC be created if
*a* decker cannot write a program with a rating greater than his
programming skill?

My argument is that he cannot do it because he is a *single*
decker. Megacorporations can create rating 12 IC because they are
comprised of many, many people working together to design, build, and
assemble the individual components to create a single instance of rating 12 IC.

A single decker cannot do this as a single person cannot design, build, and
assemble a space shuttle.

How can a mega create rating 12 IC? Because many can do what one cannot do.

If a decker rounds up a bunch of his buddies to write a program, he is no
longer one.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
--

Message no. 57 >I think that a lot of IC writers do deck. They work security, patroling
>R-, L- or, PL-TGs, or responding to alarms on a host. IC is what they
>write to make their job easier.

I friends father works for Oracle (even has shares), and they definitely do
NOT do anything else but the job they are assigned to.

> > as Perfect Code,

>World of difference. Being a programmer, I can say that these basically
>don't exist.

My flatmate (Postgraduate Computer Science Degree) tells me otherwise. He
tells me of rare and preciopus individuals who do in fact write in what is
known as "perfect code". These people have the ability to literally think in
code, and their program are works of art. While there are only one or two of
these individuals in the world, if a corp could find out how they did it,
they would definitely show others.

>If they are a corporate programmer, I don't think they are ever going to
>get a signature program [I'll beleive there could exist] because their corp
>is going to give them a lot of varying jobs, and one type of IC won't cut
>it.

So you believe that they they would put J.Q. Genius who is the only guy who
can understand his Judas IC programming onto some other job he is only going
to be fractionally as good at?
More likely they will get hi to make the entire companies Judas IC programs,
specializing and tweaking them for each host. That would give him plenty to
do. Why would they get someone who is not as good as him to do it?

>If they are a decker, it's more important to have a lot of mediocre
>utilities than one really good one (and get completely hosed when the host
>uses scramble IC or whatever you aren't strong in.)

We're talking about programmers, not deckers.

>Combat isn't what runners do.

Well then, shall I inform all my players to not take combat skills since
that is not what Runners do?

>Programming utilities is what deckers do. Sometimes you just don't have
>the cash to buy a Deception-6 (Sneak 6, Optimized) or AttackD-8 (Targeting,
>Optimization, Stealth 8) or Medic-4 (DINAB 4). When they don't have the
>cash, they only recourse is to write it themselves.

Exactly, they do it as a last resort (or close to) when they can't get it
elsewhere. The rules are there if the Decker needs to make one or two, not
for if the decker wants to make ALL his own programs, and not for if the
Decker is making high end IC for a corp. They represent the small scale, not
the large.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Message no. 58 >I have to disagree, one man could build a space shuttle, it's just a
>question of engineering after all... given the facilities to do it (machine
>tools, a foundry, a space large enough to assemble it and cranes big enough
>to lift the parts (which even IRL are radio controlled) plus a means of
>creating the circuit boards. but all of this is available to reasonably
>small companies and even private individuals if they have enough money,
>granted if he worked on it solo it would take him much longer to complete
>than if he even had some unskilled labour but...

IF, (and thats a big IF) they could do it (especially since they would need
a dozen or so skills at 8 or so) it would take a decade or more and cost
hundreds of millions.
Private groups have tried to create space vehicles and none have gone past
the laucnhing of very small rockets. A person by themselves just dosn't have
the BILLIONS of dolars necesary for development and peoduction.

>How big is your average corporate programming team? 6 people? 8?

That would only be the core of top level researchers, and for rating 12+
programs they would be RESEARCHERS, the best in their field. They would have
a small army beneath them for code checking and runnoing simulations and
doing all that tedious stuff that the precious egg heads can't be bothered
doing.

>right well what if everyone in my campaign decided they were bored and
>wanted to play a decker? that makes a team of nine deckers, who between
>them shouldn't have a problem slyly stealing equivalent resources to a
>corporate team,

You think a groups of deckers can steal about a half dozen Super Computers
that are likely to be red 12 host at least? Your campaign must be a
cakewalk.

>What is the difference between the two groups, why can the corporate team
>build rating 12, 14, 20 programs while the characters can't go any higher
>than 7?

See above. Also one of the programmers would have a very high specialization
in Programming, probably 10, which isn't that hard since I've seen a few
characters with specializations that high (albeit at the cost of other
skills, but Programmers don't need many other skills)

>what if the team decides that they're going to go in and raid the corp
>while the team are working, to extract them to get their utilities hicked,
>suddenly the faceless team become NPCs do they suddenly find that they
>can't write anything higher than rating seven programs?

Not unless they stole the entire corporate infrastructure that has been
designed specifically to make programming as efficient as possible.

As to utilities that help you program, SR already has one that will program
quite low end utilities by itself, and that one is actually available to
runners.

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Message no. 59 >No he's not, and I agree with him. It's possible for one man to design a
>rocket--even one of that size. The resources are harder to get to (LOTS of
>money required) and the time may be prohibative. [200 people work a lot
>faster than 1.]

Try 20,000 and you will be closer

>So, now you are saying that it might take multiple teams? That's
>interesting...

Why not, we are talking about rating 12+ programs used to protect a
corporations best kept secrets.

>Whatever. You don't need the entire corp, just it's Matrix division.
>Plus, you don't need all that. They are probably developing somewhere on
>the order of 100 programs in various stages of development. So, you steal
>the equlivalent of 1% of either Matrix division. That's not gonna be TOO
>hard. [Difficult: YES].

1% of Renraku's matrix division?! Not TOO hard?!

>I did, if you haven't noticed. I don't think you have adequately explained
>WHAT tools/resources a mega is going to have that a team of experienced
>deckers can't steal that will have any bearing on the RATING of the
>programs they can create. [TN sure -- I'll give you that one in a second.]

Surely a corp that can produce an AI (albeit somewhat "accidentally") can do
more than a group of deckers.

>Well, except for the nice little rule that SOTA doesn't apply to programs
>in progress. As far as time constraints go I agree that megas will be able
>to make probably 20-100 rating X programs in the time it takes a single
>decker to create a rating X programs. However, I still disagree that the
>megas are going to be able to make something of a rating that players just
>can't reproduce.

What about things other than programs? Would you let players make Cyberware
that a corp takes ages ro make like a MBW?

>The first example (spark plug -> car) is comparing apples to oranges. All
>the components of a mega are the same, they are human(oid).

Well to get back to Shuttles, its like comparing the race for the first
private group to get a rocket into space with NASA.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Message no. 60 This whole thread got me curious as to thinking "what is the biggest IC and
who could program it".
So I whip out Target:Matrix and go to the biggest of the bad, the baddest
was on Zurich Orbital, which is underestandable. The highest number was 15,
even SK-Prime only got up to 14 (but that was lethal Black IC 14 with one
showing up every turn).
So that got me thinking, Who could make this IC.
So I crunched some numbers.
Start with a Human of intelligence 6 with computer 6
Corp grabs him and starts him on his way by chucking in cyber and bio.
Cerebral booster 2
Mnemonic enhancer 3
Encephalon 2
All within the availability and cost range of a starting character (if your
GM allows Bioware) so definitely OK for a corp (seeing as people are
comparing deckers to corpers, why not the other way round?)
Now pump in 90 karma
This would be about 2 years for a runner (5 karma a run, one eun a month) so
lets make it 10 years for a corper. This will make him about 30. We could
add a few years if needed if he couldn'e get the cyber or bio, but he would
most likely get it eventually, since he will be one of the top programmers
and very highly paid.

End result
Programmer
Intelligence 6(8)
Task Pool 3

Computer 8
Programming 15

He can now legaly make the IC that is on Zurich Orbital, as is not
completely beyond the ability of a player to attain after quite a while
playing.

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Message no. 61 Lone Eagle writes:

> I have to disagree, one man could build a space shuttle, it's just a
> question of engineering after all... given the facilities to do it (machine
> tools, a foundry, a space large enough to assemble it and cranes big enough
> to lift the parts (which even IRL are radio controlled) plus a means of
> creating the circuit boards.

Huhn? Are you crazy? Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying? I thought
that the original point was _creating_ the space shutle (as in, the first
one). _That_ took a lot of effort and time. As Martin said, just the
exterior tiles took something like 3 years of continuous research by a
dedicated team of expert research level ceramic engineers (not exactly the
most common occupation). Each of these individuals would have had something
like 8 years of education and 20 years of field specific experience. And
that's just the tiles. Add the aeronautical design, the life support, the
control systems, and heaps of other things, each of which would have had a
similar team of very experienced and knowledgeable people designing and
implementing it, and I think you've got _waaay_ more than a single
individual could ever hope to achieve. If you think otherwise, then I'd like
to introduce you to my cousin, superman. Because that's the kind of world
you seem to be living in. :-)

OTOH, with enough resources, and access to all the already discovered
technical data, it might be possible for one rather rich individual to
reproduce a space shuttle to the specifications already made. It might take
10-20 years or some equally ridiculous time, but it may just be possible.

Anyway, this is getting off topic, as I wouldn't really compare a space
shuttle (either original design or building from components/blueprints) to
making a Rating 10 IC. IC is a low dimensional problem, requiring expertise
in a limited number of fields (perhaps only 1-3). Designing and building
space shuttles is certainly much more multi-dimensional than coding IC.

Da Twink Daddy writes:

> Programming utilities is what deckers do.

Er, no, actually. Programming utilities is something that deckers _can_ do.
Just like building and modifying vehicles is something that riggers _can_
do. Not all will do so, however. Decking is what deckers do, and rigging is
what riggers do. Decking does not rely upon, revolve around, or necessarily
involve programming utilities at all. Sure, sometimes your own custom coded
utility might help (just like a custom modded vehicle might improve your
rigging potential), but the programming isn't what the character is all
about.

> When they don't have the cash, they only recourse is to write it
> themselves.

Or, heck, in their down time between runs when the sammy's healing up (or
getting modded), the magician is initiating and learning spells, and the
riger is tinkering with vehicles, the deckers can code programs. Over the
course of a few longish downtimes, a decent program can be created. It
doesn't have to be a matter of needing to.

> I understand the karma cost isn't that great, and that specialization is
> more likely to happen inside a corp. But, llok at the descriptions of the
> skill levels on p. 98-99 of SR3. Given those descriptions, how many people
> in the world do you really think have a skill of 8? 9? 10? 12? My answers
> are ~100, ~12, maybe 1, and 0.

Um, I'd say rather a lot more, actually. Lets compare to the analogy of
sports people. Since we're dealing with a large number of American's, we'll
look at Grid Iron. How many players on a professional team? I've no idea,
lets say 10 for arguments sake. Each one is "World Class". Plus all the
replacements, lets say another 10. So we're up to 20 so far. How many teams?
I dunno, but there seems to be one per major city... Lets say 100. So that's
2,000, now. Now lets look at the recently retired, and the up and coming in
College Football. We'll be able to quadruple that figure easily. So we've
some 5000 people who could be called "World Class" American Footballers. If
we were to try this with a game that was actualy played in more than one
country (say, soccer), then we'd have easily 20 times that. Since
programming is more comparable to soccer than American Football (ie, it's
done in rather a large number of countries), then a figure more like 50,000
World Class soccer players might be a fair comparison to the number of World
Class programmers. So I'd reckon that your numbers are out by a factor of
around 5,000.

> Also, just as something tangental to the conversation. I think that most
> NPC gain karma much slower than PCs. Their lives aren't <can't find the
> right adjective> enough to gain the karma. PCs are more likely to be in a
> life-or-death situation, they get double-crossed more, they have to make
> more moral decisions, they stretch their abilities more.

Well, I'd disagree. Sure, runner PCs might earn that "Threat" karma (usually
worth 1-3 per run), but everything else they earn is for things like
"achieving goals", "clever ideas", "sticking to their
character", and so on.
Every NPC does these things in their chosen field. Every NPC would earn
Karma at a comparable rate to most runners, in my view. "Stretching their
abilities more" isn't something unique to runners. Most people do this in
their job on a frequent basis.

> > > SR3 gives us the rules regarding skills and it IMO STRONGLY implies
> > > that 10 is a maximum skill level.
>
> > It does? I've never ever been given to even begin to think that. How did
> > you form this view?
>
> p 98-99, SR3.

The table ends with "8+". How does that imply an upper limit of 10? It
implies an upper limit of infinity to me. However, it does imply that the
writers didn't expect to see too many skills too far above 8 except in
special or unusual circumstances. Like, for example, the guys who code
Rating 10 IC for the hottest databanks of major mega corps, perhaps? <grin>

Bryan Pow writes:

> Not unless they stole the entire corporate infrastructure that has been
> designed specifically to make programming as efficient as possible.

I think that this is an important thing. A software company (especially a
mega corp) can provide significant resources such as management overheads,
testing, all the accountants, office juniors, tech supprt guys, and whatever
to make programming an easy, fast, efficient, even cost effective task for
_specialist_ programmers. A couple of runners who have to do all this
themselves, plus run, plus dodge the cops, have far too much on their hands
to do, even assuming they actually have all those skills. It's not to say
that they couldn't try (in my opinion), but they'd find it rather a lot more
difficult.

> What about things other than programs? Would you let players make
> Cyberware that a corp takes ages ro make like a MBW?

Well, we could compare programming high rating IC to creating and implanting
high grade cyberware (each rather difficult, the first from a design point,
and the second from a surgical point). However, we'd fall flat on our faces,
as it's quite possible in SR (using the M&M rules) for a chop doc (or heck,
my teams rigger!) to implant delta grade cyberware in the Adepts lounge room
using only a chainsaw for a surgaical tool, and need only 14s or something
to do so! <grin> Hey, if the programming rules are way too harsh, the
surgery rules are way to lenient!

It seems to me that pretty much both sides of this discussion agree on one
thing: mega corps can create better IC than runners in SR because they can
harness the power of greater personnel, resources, and infrastructure.
However, it's a little difficult for runners to do the same, as the rules
_do_ constrain what a team of runners (even with decent resources) can come
up with. Such a runner team is subjected to an absolute maximum on what they
can achieve. This, I think, is the core of the problem. A team, as both
sides agree, _should_ be able to create a better program than a single
programmer (and probably in less time). The Matrix rules, however, only
allow a team to create the _same_ program as a single programmer, but in a
fair amount less time.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a26 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W++ N+ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+@ 5@ X+>+++ R++ tv(-) b+ DI+++@ D-@ G+
e++>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 62 <snipt!(TM)>
> > Huhn? Why? Getting a Rating 12 skill isn't all
that difficult. If we assume a Linked Attribute of 6
(fair enough for someone at the top of their field):
>
> [Snip: table]
>
> > Getting from a skill of zero to 12 costs around
144 Karma. Getting from 6 to 12 costs 144 - 30 = 114.
Or around 100 Karma. How many PCs do you know who have
Karma Pools of around 10-12? If so, then they could
have a skill of 12 if they wished to. How long did it
take? In my experience, in game time, it's usually
only around 6-12 months. So there can be planty of
other folks out there (such as computer programmer
nerds in big corps) who spend their time getting their
skills high, too. And with death not being around
every corner, they can afford to specialise a bit
more, unlike the average runner.
>
> It even become less costly in the case of someone
with an intelligence higher than 6 (exceptional
attribute edge or their one attribute that the player
is gonna increase to attribute max [or both]), plus a
couple of cerebral boosters and maybe a mnemonic
enhancer. [This is all assuming we are trying to get
computer 12.]
>
> I understand the karma cost isn't that great, and
that specialization is more likely to happen inside a
corp. But, llok at the descriptions of the skill
levels on p. 98-99 of SR3. Given those descriptions,
how many people in the world do you really think have
a skill of 8? 9? 10? 12? My answers are ~100, ~12,
maybe 1, and 0.
<snipt!(TM)>
> Da Twink Daddy

Those skill descriptions are merde. Pardon my French.
But think about it - characters can start out with
skill levels of 6 (7 with specialisation) at creation,
whether their backstory has them as a punk ganger, or
what. A character with the lowest priority in skills
(E - 27 points) can know 4 skill at this level at
creation. A character with the highest priority can
know 8 skills at this level!

Those descriptions just don't fly, man.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 63 Not quoting anyone, but everyone has said good stuff.

Regarding maximum skill levels:
The example of a sport is a better example than the one I was working off
of (chess). So your numbers are probably better. But, really if 8 is a
"Genius" how do you describe someone with a skill of 15? I KNOW the karma
cost isn't prohibative and for NPCs neither is the specialization required.
But the descriptions given don't seem to go much further before you get to
the point where the only description is: "You are the best. You can no
longer be taught. You define the SOTA curve. As you increase in skill, so
does the benchmark that all others are compared to. You cannot increase
your effective skill level any further." (That's probably skill 12 there.)

Regarding building the space shuttle:
I was thinking of just one (or a few) dimension(s) of "building the space
shuttle". I wasn't considering all the software, and all the materials
design. Just the shape/size and materials requirements, plus putting it
all together--after just buying the parts. Designing the space shuttle,
when it was designed (so it's SOTA) and putting it all together would have
been impossible for one man to do in a lifetime. [Or possibly ever, since
our memory starts failing after a while even if we life a really long
time.]

Like someone said, the space shuttle has more dimensions of complexity than
designing and writing a computer program. I was simply scaling down the
example to roughly the same dimension of difficulty.

Regarding what is really the issue:
I'm not saying a single decker should be able to write rating 15 IC. I am
saying that the rules, which apply to all characters (P or NP) and teams (P
or NP), no matter how well-equiped, do not allow for this to even be a
possibility unless at least one of them could do it by themselves (that is,
they have a rating 15 skill). This, I feel, is unreasonable.

Regarding what deckers do:
Yes, they do deck for money, and hopefully that is what they are doing the
most. But, programming is an extremely value skill for deckers. Saying
deckers don't program is like saying that mages don't design spells.

Regarding what shadowrunners do:
You took me out of context, and I don't appreciate that. Combat is NOT
where shadowrunners, IMO, should concentrate thier skills. They should be
as stealthy as possible and only become violent when the situation
dictates. They should spent less time in physical combat than deckers
spend in cybercombat.

Regarding the programs that help you program:
Yep, it's great. Get a decent programming suite with the self-coder option
and never worry about writing low level programs again. :) If you've got a
little time (actually it would take a lot) you can write yourself a team of
programmers. :) And yes, I think this is what the corps do a lot. I think
that numerous SKs and soon-to-be AIs end up cruching out IC code and
especially upgrading IC code.

Regarding what the megas can do that the players can't:
1) Spend a WHOLE lot of money.
2) Make the law.
IMO, lacking either one of these will not prevent a programming team from
achieveing it's goal, if they already have the baseline equipment. I think
that a group of deckers can get baseline equipment necessary to write
rating 15 or less programs and IC. [Yes, #1 can go a long way toward
reducing TN and time.]

Regarding IC v. Utilities v. Applications:
It seems to me that numerous people in the discussion are trying to say
these are developed differently. They aren't. They are all programs and
all are designed and written using the same rules. If you can write
AttackD-15 you've got the skills to write BlackIC-15. It just takes a while
longer because the multiplier is bigger. You also happen to have the skills
to write Programing Suite-15 or SupaEdit-15, your all-in-one file-editing
application.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 64 Okay, this discussion is getting ready to implode, so let's all slow
it down, kick off our shoes, and get back to the points that brought
us to this moment:

Point of discussion 1) The programming cap as written in "Matrix" is
not only unrealistic, but also unfair. The cap is a hard limit imposed
not only on those wishing to program solo, but also those that wish to
program in teams. In the first case, the limit is the
Computer (programming) skill of the individual. In the second case,
the limit is the Computer (programming) skill of the individual with
the highest Computer (programming) skill rating.

Some of us obviously feel that this rule is unfair as it imposes a
hard cap as to the possible abilities of a decker which is not
consistant with many of the other Shadowrun rules. Is there a hard cap
to designing and creating a gun? No. Is there a hard cap to creating
vehicles and drones? No. Is there a hard cap to designing and
leadning spells? No. So, why should there be one to programming?
This lack of consistency opens a gap in the rules that is not easily
closed.

Point of discussion 2) We all seem to be arguing around the same
point, just from different angles. As a reference point, let me say
that a Fairlight Excalibur deck will take a solo decker around 11
work years* to create and will cost 50k nuyen.

Now, let it be noted that I am not saying that the time is
unreasonable, nor do I believe that Da Twink Daddy nor Lone Eagle is
either. In fact, I find 11 work years to be rather fair for the
Fairlight Excalibur. It seems entirely reasonable to assume that one
cannot possibly create such a work of software (Which is where all of
the time is being spent) without spending an unbelievable amount of
time programming.

The Matrix rules, as written, allow for a team of programmers to
lessen the time required for a particular programming task to a more
reasonable level wherein the task may actually be accomplished in a
timely manner. However, the Matrix rules as written specifically
require that someone with a Computer (programming) skill of 12 be on
the project in order to even program required parts of the Fairlight
Excalibur's code. This raises a second inconsistency which is that of
unbelievably high skill ratings combined with the availability of
individuals with such skill ratings.

While some have shown the relative karma costs of moving a skill in
the double digits, none have tackled the fact that SR3, as written,
states that an 8 is a world-class skill level. What, then, do we call
those beyond an 8? How do we even conceive of an individual able to
perform at a skill well beyond world class? And how many of these
individuals can possibly exist at any one time?

This too appears to be a crack in the Shadowrun consistency as
rating 8+ ice and decks beyond MPCP rating 8 are all present in the
world. Not to mention the commonality of such creations. Now, if we
are to assume that a SOTA curve is in effect then we must also assume
that today's MPCP 12 deck is tomorrow's MPCP 8 deck as the software
that controls the deck loses its power and potential. This means that
there must be individuals providing skills and time to constantly
upgrading and developing high rating programs at a reasonably fast
rate. Which means that, by the Matrix rules, there must exist those
with beyond rating 8 Computer (programming) skills.

Am I really to buy into the fact that some decker is currently sitting
at Novatech leading a team project with a Computer (programming) skill
of rating 8+ developing IC? Am I really to buy into the fact that he
may even have a rating 10+? And am I also to buy into the fact that he
may not be the only decker that exists at Novatech with a rating 10+
who is developing and updating IC code?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, it has been stated that a mega is easily beyond the realm of mere
PC ability because it has money and manpower. If you would please look
in Matrix then you would notice that access to a red host, a
programming, plan, ample memory, and a high rating programming suite
all contribute to the much greater success rate of a mega than a PC.

I am not stating that a PC could ever do anything in the same amount
of time that a mega could do. Logically that's not possible. What I am
stating is that the mega is bound by the same fundamental restriction
that the PC is, which is that a program of X rating requires the
existence of a Computer (programming) skill of X rating. It is this
fundamental requirement that I not only find ludicous, but I also
feel requries entirely too much handwaving to get around.

Also, for those that wish to state that mega corps have teams of
hundreds working on a program, I would ask you to look at the maximum
size limit of a team in the Matrix book. NPC's are bound to the same
rules as PC's and program teams are headed by NPC's, not megas.

Let us admit to ourselves that no amount of money will overcome a
hardcap such as that inflicted by the Matrix rules. If we are to agree
upon the rules of the game, we must admit that these rules hold no
bias as to whether the character is an NPC or PC, but rather that
these rules are much like the laws of physics in our own universe.
They are immutable and as such we are bound to their whim, not vice
versa.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

My suggestion is quite simply this:

Change the hard limit such that

A) A decker working solo will never be able to program something
beyond his Computer (programming) skill.

B) A decker attempting to program something beyond his Computer
(programming) skill will require a team to do so.

My suggestion would be to create a simple mathematical formula by
which one could state the maximum program that can be created by a
team. My suggestion would be to say the Computer (programming)
rating possessed by the team member with the highest
Computer (programming) rating multiplied by either 1.5 or 2.

These changes maintain the fundamental idea already laid down that a
program's rating is linked to the character's skill while also
acknowledging the real world fact that programs created as team
efforts are usually greater than the sum of their parts.

Also, these changes shift the plasuability of such program creation
out of the realm of hand waving and avatar creation and into the realm
of game reality. This shift creates a consistency of rules and
existence.

*Note: A work year is equivalent to working 8 hours a day for 365
days according to Matrix rules. (As a sidenote, let's all admit that
if a character spent 11 years working on such a deck then he would be
hopelessly left behind when the MPCP's slowly climbed skyward into the
middle or upper 10's. The Shadowrun timeline itself is barely 11
years, who knows what types of gear, decks, or otherwise will be
available by 2074!)

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

Message no. 65 >A) A decker working solo will never be able to program something
>beyond his Computer (programming) skill.
>
>B) A decker attempting to program something beyond his Computer
>(programming) skill will require a team to do so.
>
>My suggestion would be to create a simple mathematical formula by
>which one could state the maximum program that can be created by a
>team. My suggestion would be to say the Computer (programming)
>rating possessed by the team member with the highest
>Computer (programming) rating multiplied by either 1.5 or 2.

An amendment I would make to this is that as team-members are added, they
need to be added in either as "skill boosters" or "time savers" but
not
both. So that if the whole team is there soley as "skill boosters" then it
takes the normal time. For "skill boosters", I think that the extra team
members skills should be a factor, since basically they are helping someone
do what would normally be impossible, so would need to be very skilled also.

How about, every team member that is a "skill booster" adds plus one to the
max rating able to be done, with the limit being 1.5 times the average of
all their skills.
This means a 3 man team with skills at 6 could make a rating 9 if they all
"skill boost"
They could make a rating 8, in half the time if 2 "skill boost" and one
"time saves"
They could make a rating 7, in a third the time if 1 "skill boosts" and 2
"time save"
or they could make a rating 6 in a quarter the time if all "time save" as
per the standard Progrmming Team rules.

This means a team of four people with skill 8 could make a rating 12.
While a team of four with two at eight and two at 4 would be limited to
rating 9 programs, because of the lack of skill from the rating 4 guys
(probably cos they couldn't understand alot of what the higher guys came up
with), and so would be better off putting the rating four guys to "time
saving" so that they could push their limit up to 10. This kind of supports
the idea of a few geniuses coming up with the goods while the two mooks do
the grunt work.

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Message no. 66 >From: Martin Little <grimjack@******.com>
>Legal equpiment, access to fabs to create custom hardware on a large
>scale/create prototypes - Take a look at how much a modern fabrication
>plant costs, and how much it depreciates in value and then tell me a team
>is just going to 'rip one off'
>Electricity, if you're running a lot of stolen equipment someone is going
>to notice, or you're going to have trouble keeping a good supply if you're
>somewhere so decrepid they don't notice.

You're deckers, you don't physically steal the equipment, you steal runtime,
you run it on corp mainframes, use corp power, corp fab plant... you use
your validate utility to create an account that allows you to do all of this
and when you're finished you erase the logs and run a B&E to steal the
physical evidence.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Message no. 67 >From: Graht <davidb@****.imcprint.com>
>The space shuttle is not a rocket. The complexity of the space shuttle is
>almost mind numbing.
<Snip>

No it isn't, when you look at the whole thing as a mess of parts (everything
reduced to its absolute basics) it seems that way but from an engineering
point of view the space shuttle is built out of sub-assemblies, each of
which is built out of sub-assemblies...etc. It would take a long time but if
you look at it as a sequence of tasks rather than one single task it is
possible. Fully automated production lines might even make it feasable.

>My argument is that he cannot do it because he is a *single* decker.
>Megacorporations can create rating 12 IC because they are comprised of
>many, many people working together to design, build, and assemble the
>individual components to create a single instance of rating 12 IC.
>
>A single decker cannot do this as a single person cannot design, build, and
>assemble a space shuttle.
>
>How can a mega create rating 12 IC? Because many can do what one cannot
>do.
>
>If a decker rounds up a bunch of his buddies to write a program, he is no
>longer one.

I thought your arguement was that _character_ (s) couldn't but megas could,
a bunch of characters do not a mega make.
A bunch of characters still have to obey the rules, no matter how many
characters you get together they still can't write programs exceeding the
highest Computer(programming) among them. I'll reitterate a point I made
earlier, what happens when the programmers working of the Cross Matrix
Technology's new Sparky(20) are all talked to by PCs, they all become NPCs
so do they suddenly loose their ability to complete the project?

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Message no. 68 >From: Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au>
>Um, I'd say rather a lot more, actually. Lets compare to the analogy of
>sports people. Since we're dealing with a large number of American's, we'll
>look at Grid Iron. How many players on a professional team? I've no idea,
>lets say 10 for arguments sake. Each one is "World Class". Plus all the
>replacements, lets say another 10. So we're up to 20 so far. How many
>teams?
>I dunno, but there seems to be one per major city... Lets say 100. So
>that's
>2,000, now. Now lets look at the recently retired, and the up and coming in
>College Football. We'll be able to quadruple that figure easily. So we've
>some 5000 people who could be called "World Class" American Footballers. If
>we were to try this with a game that was actualy played in more than one
>country (say, soccer), then we'd have easily 20 times that. Since
>programming is more comparable to soccer than American Football (ie, it's
>done in rather a large number of countries), then a figure more like 50,000
>World Class soccer players might be a fair comparison to the number of
>World
>Class programmers. So I'd reckon that your numbers are out by a factor of
>around 5,000.

I have to disagree with your numbers, for a start you have the offensive
team, the defensive team, special teams (the kicker and such) and
substitutes, very few of these are world class, (I'm now going to put a date
on when Channel 4 stopped putting their American Football coverage on at a
reasonable time) Walter "the Refrigerator" Payton was a world class
defensive lineman, could he throw catch or run? not particularly;
Football(defensive tackle) 5-6(8+). Cornelius Bennett was a world class
cornerback, would he have lasted two seconds in centre (sorry center) snap?
Nope; Football(interception) 5(8+). IMHO the names you come up with off the
top of your head, from teams unrelated to your own, with only a reasonable
interest in football are the true world class players, for every one you
know add an extra for someone up and coming who hasn't made his name yet.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Message no. 69 According to Martin Little, on Wed, 17 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> I'd challenge I could give one man all the pieces to the shuttle with all
> the knowledge necessary and he'd probably die before he got done.

Probably true, but then you have someone else pick up where the first person
left off. That way, it'd be the same as if only a single person ever worked
on it.

> Almost all complex systems programming gets done by smaller teams working
> on well defined modules these days.

Which is why I posted those rules to split up a programming task the other
day, but they seem to have gone unnoticed...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 70 According to Downtym, on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> B) A decker attempting to program something beyond his Computer
> (programming) skill will require a team to do so.
>
> My suggestion would be to create a simple mathematical formula by
> which one could state the maximum program that can be created by a
> team. My suggestion would be to say the Computer (programming)
> rating possessed by the team member with the highest
> Computer (programming) rating multiplied by either 1.5 or 2.

How about the way I already posted? Split a program up into lower-rated
ones as you see fit. In an extreme case, if you have fifteen people with
Computer skill 1 you could still go for a rating 15 program by having each
of them write a rating 1 program and putting them all together.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 71 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Pow" <bryan_pow@*******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:13 AM
Subject: Re: Programming and Maximum Skill Levels

> >A) A decker working solo will never be able to program something
> >beyond his Computer (programming) skill.
> >
> >B) A decker attempting to program something beyond his Computer
> >(programming) skill will require a team to do so.
> >
> >My suggestion would be to create a simple mathematical formula by
> >which one could state the maximum program that can be created by a
> >team. My suggestion would be to say the Computer (programming)
> >rating possessed by the team member with the highest
> >Computer (programming) rating multiplied by either 1.5 or 2.

I like my method better than you simple mathatical formula, for multiple
reasons.
1) Continuity. a) Your method doesn't handle the degenerate case of a
one-man team. b)Suddenly because I got one more guy working with me, we
are half again as good, and it doesn't matter how many more peopple of the
same skill level we get together.
2) I made it up. [Just being honest here...]

> An amendment I would make to this is that as team-members are added, they
> need to be added in either as "skill boosters" or "time savers"
but not
> both. So that if the whole team is there soley as "skill boosters" then
it
> takes the normal time. For "skill boosters", I think that the extra team
> members skills should be a factor, since basically they are helping
someone
> do what would normally be impossible, so would need to be very skilled
also.

> How about, every team member that is a "skill booster" adds plus one to
the
> max rating able to be done, with the limit being 1.5 times the average of
> all their skills.
> This means a 3 man team with skills at 6 could make a rating 9 if they
all
> "skill boost"
> They could make a rating 8, in half the time if 2 "skill boost" and one
> "time saves"
> They could make a rating 7, in a third the time if 1 "skill boosts" and 2
> "time save"
> or they could make a rating 6 in a quarter the time if all "time save" as
> per the standard Progrmming Team rules.

I don't like how this skill boost/time saver works because it basically
give automatic success that can only be spent time saving, I would much
rather just throw all the dice in and figure time/quality that way. For
higher rating programs (and/or lower level skills), there aren't going to
be that many successes anyway.

> This means a team of four people with skill 8 could make a rating 12.
> While a team of four with two at eight and two at 4 would be limited to
> rating 9 programs, because of the lack of skill from the rating 4 guys
> (probably cos they couldn't understand alot of what the higher guys came
up
> with), and so would be better off putting the rating four guys to "time
> saving" so that they could push their limit up to 10. This kind of
supports
> the idea of a few geniuses coming up with the goods while the two mooks
do
> the grunt work.

My system sort of takes this into account because people on the team with
low skills end up not increasing the maximum rating the team can produce.
However, these "dummies" can still throw their dice in with everyone else
to try and reduce time.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 72 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>

> Which is why I posted those rules to split up a programming task the
other
> day, but they seem to have gone unnoticed...

Sorry, Gurth, I didn't mean to leave you out of the conversation. I meant
to comment on those rules but got caught up in other threads. Prepare for
a reply. :)

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 73 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>

> I'm thinking that there should be a fairly easy way to fix this whole
> problem. Basically, you're both saying that to write a high-rating
program
> with a team of people (or even alone), you split the big task into
smaller
> ones. So my reasoning is that this can be applied to SR as well: instead
of
> requiring a team to write a single rating 12 program, they could be
writing
> four rating 3 programs and putting them all together.

Except that a rating 12 program is a lot bigger than 4 rating 3 programs
AND for good reason. Even if a rating 12 program was just 4 rating 3
programs features jammed into one "box" there's still a lot of software to
handle the intergration of the parts.

> The problem is that this causes size differences: four rating 3 programs
> take up (36 x size multiplier) Mp while a single rating 12 program
requires
> (144 x size multiplier) Mp... A solution would be to make each
sub-program
> take up an amount of memory equal to the base program's size, divided by
> its rating, and multiplied by the rating of the sub-program.

I would work in the other direction. Instead of making you write 4 rating
3 programs that are huge. I'd make you write 16 = (12^2 / 3^2) rating 3
programs [some of these are actually not new programs/features but are
integration steps]. You could also break it into 9 rating 4 or 4 rating 6.
Or if you team has varing levels of skill you can break it into programs of
differing ratings [which don't necessarily correspond directly to feature
sets] as long as the sum of the squares of the part's ratings is at least
the square of the total rating.

Ex:
A rating 5 program can be a rating 4 and a rating 3. (5^2 = 4^2 + 3^2).
A rating 13 program can be a rating 12 and a rating 5. (13^2 = 12^2 + 5^2).
A rating 8 program can be a rating 6, a rating 5, and 3 rating 1. (8^2 6^2 + 5^2 +
3x(1^2)).
A rating 7 program can be 2 rating 5 programs. (7^2 < 2x(5^2)).

> The team would need a leader to coordinate and plan. Planning happens as
> per Matrix, p. 78, but also requires a Leadership test with a target
number
> equal to the number of people working on the program (including the
leader
> if he or she is a coder as well). Every success on this test reduces the
"Programmed by
> team" modifier by +1 to a maximum of +/-0.

Instead I'd modify the target number for the design test by +the square
root of (number of parts - 1) (round up), and then just allow the
leadership test do be optional to reduce the "Programmed by team" modifier.

> For example, writing a rating 12 Analyze (432 Mp) can be done by four
> people by having each write a rating 3 program with a size of 432 / 12 x
3
> = 108 Mp. The leader needs to roll a Leadership (4) test to coordinate
> everyting properly.

In my system things are a bit harder. Rating 12 analyze can be done by
writing 4 rating 6 programs (same size--need not be done by different
people). The target number of the desgin test is (12+sqrt(4-1) (round up)
= 14); this single test produces a design plan for each part and an
intergration strategy, if failed programming can still be attempted but
each part suffers the standard +2 modifier to it's programming test.
[Target number for each program is calculated using it's rating (6).] If
more that one person writes the programs, a leadership test can be made,
using a TN of the number of programmers, to reduce the "Programmed by team"
modifier.

> The same Analyze program could be broken up into 12 rating 1 programs
with
> a size of 36 Mp each, but the leader would need to roll 12s and so it's
> likely to be more buggy than when written by fewer people. But it does
take
> less time to complete...

My system this takes 144 parts, and a roll of 24 on the design test.
However, if you can pull off this design, now you can just feed the parts
into your programming suite with the self-coder option--maybe write a few
in your spare time--and go make some money.

My examples above would require 6, 14, 10, and 8 on the design test
respectively.

Also, I'd still want to somehow limit players from writing programs that
are a lot higher than their skill. (Maybe increase penalties for failed
design test -- or make test mandatory if the resultant program rating is
higher that ANY of the programmers skills.)

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 74 be a factor, since basically they are helping
>someone
> > do what would normally>I don't like how this skill boost/time saver
>works because it basically
>give automatic success that can only be spent time saving, I would much
>rather just throw all the dice in and figure time/quality that way. For
>higher rating programs (and/or lower level skills), there aren't going to
>be that many successes anyway.

The main problem I have with that is that it changes the rules rather than
adding to them. The "time saving" part of my "talk" was from the
Programming
Teams section. I always follow the guideline that if you don't need to
replace a rule then don't. What is needed is a rule that allows bigger
programs, which dosn't mean we should get rid of the Team rule as it is
geared towards making programs faster. In those rules you only roll dice
equal to the average of their skills and task pool, so adding extra low end
guys makes it harder, but reduces the time.

>My system sort of takes this into account because people on the team with
>low skills end up not increasing the maximum rating the team can produce.
>However, these "dummies" can still throw their dice in with everyone else
>to try and reduce time.

Dummies by the rules as they are, only make the job quicker, they don't make
it easier. I feel this is accurate as they will most likely only be writing
the few bits of code they understand, and will need supervision from the
smart guys.

--
"No grand idea was ever born in a conference, but alot of foolish ideas have
died there."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Message no. 75 According to Da Twink Daddy, on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> Except that a rating 12 program is a lot bigger than 4 rating 3 programs

You'll have noticed by now that I had already thought of that :)

> AND for good reason. Even if a rating 12 program was just 4 rating 3
> programs features jammed into one "box" there's still a lot of software
> to handle the intergration of the parts.

And I think I'm one step ahead of you there, too: who says that one of the
programs isn't actually the code that makes the other bits work together?

> I would work in the other direction. Instead of making you write 4
> rating 3 programs that are huge. I'd make you write 16 = (12^2 / 3^2)
> rating 3 programs [some of these are actually not new programs/features
> but are integration steps]. You could also break it into 9 rating 4 or 4
> rating 6. Or if you team has varing levels of skill you can break it into
> programs of differing ratings [which don't necessarily correspond
> directly to feature sets] as long as the sum of the squares of the part's
> ratings is at least the square of the total rating.

So to put it simply, what you're saying is that you'd break it down into
memory sizes, and then figure out what rating program goes with that (rounded
up, if necessary). Actually, I think this is a better idea than what I came
up with, though it requires a bit more calculation.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 76 At 09:26 AM 7/18/2002 +0000, Lone Eagle wrote:
>>From: Graht <davidb@****.imcprint.com>
>>The space shuttle is not a rocket. The complexity of the space shuttle
>>is almost mind numbing.
><Snip>
>
>No it isn't, when you look at the whole thing as a mess of parts
>(everything reduced to its absolute basics) it seems that way but from an
>engineering point of view the space shuttle is built out of
>sub-assemblies, each of which is built out of sub-assemblies...etc. It
>would take a long time but if you look at it as a sequence of tasks rather
>than one single task it is possible. Fully automated production lines
>might even make it feasable.

Well, to me it's mind numbing :)

>>My argument is that he cannot do it because he is a *single* decker.
>>Megacorporations can create rating 12 IC because they are comprised of
>>many, many people working together to design, build, and assemble the
>>individual components to create a single instance of rating 12 IC.
>>
>>A single decker cannot do this as a single person cannot design, build,
>>and assemble a space shuttle.
>>
>>How can a mega create rating 12 IC? Because many can do what one cannot do.
>>
>>If a decker rounds up a bunch of his buddies to write a program, he is no
>>longer one.
>
>I thought your arguement was that _character_ (s) couldn't but megas
>could, a bunch of characters do not a mega make.

I apologize if I didn't make that clear earlier. If a bunch of characters
with a whole lot of skill and significant resources got together, they
might be able to do what mega can do. It might take more time, but they
might be able to pull it off.

>A bunch of characters still have to obey the rules, no matter how many
>characters you get together they still can't write programs exceeding the
>highest Computer(programming) among them.

Then that rule is messed up. I can understand that one person shouldn't be
able to do it, but a sufficiently large group should be able to do it.

Here's how I might do it:

It would take 7 people with skill 6 to write a rating 7 program. It would
take 8 such groups to write a rating 8 program. And so on.

A rating 12 program would require (7*8*9*10*11*12) 665,280 programers with
a skill of 6... okay, maybe that's to many programers...

But that's along the lines I'm thinking of for the requirements to write a
rating 12 program. YMMV.

Message no. 77 At 11:31 PM 7/17/2002 -0500, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
>But, really if 8 is a
>"Genius" how do you describe someone with a skill of 15?

Wile E. Coyote, Super-Genius...

Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
http://www.graht.com
--

Message no. 78 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>

> > I would work in the other direction. Instead of making you write 4
> > rating 3 programs that are huge. I'd make you write 16 = (12^2 / 3^2)
> > rating 3 programs [some of these are actually not new programs/features
> > but are integration steps]. You could also break it into 9 rating 4 or
4
> > rating 6. Or if you team has varing levels of skill you can break it
into
> > programs of differing ratings [which don't necessarily correspond
> > directly to feature sets] as long as the sum of the squares of the
part's
> > ratings is at least the square of the total rating.

> So to put it simply, what you're saying is that you'd break it down into
> memory sizes, and then figure out what rating program goes with that
(rounded
> up, if necessary). Actually, I think this is a better idea than what I
came
> up with, though it requires a bit more calculation.

Right. Although in the common case of trying to break a program of m*n
rating into some number of n rating programs you simply need m^2
subprograms. Maybe that was to math-y. If you want to break a program of
rating X into sub-programs of rating Y you'll need (X/Y [keep factions])^2
(round up) parts. So, simply square the number of parts you'd need from
your method.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 79 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Pow" <bryan_pow@*******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Programming and Maximum Skill Levels

> be a factor, since basically they are helping
> >someone
> > > do what would normally>I don't like how this skill boost/time saver
> >works because it basically
> >give automatic success that can only be spent time saving, I would much
> >rather just throw all the dice in and figure time/quality that way. For
> >higher rating programs (and/or lower level skills), there aren't going
to
> >be that many successes anyway.

> The main problem I have with that is that it changes the rules rather
than
> adding to them. The "time saving" part of my "talk" was from the
Programming
> Teams section. I always follow the guideline that if you don't need to
> replace a rule then don't. What is needed is a rule that allows bigger
> programs, which dosn't mean we should get rid of the Team rule as it is
> geared towards making programs faster. In those rules you only roll dice
> equal to the average of their skills and task pool, so adding extra low
end
> guys makes it harder, but reduces the time.

Alright, I wasn't as up on the team-programming rules as I thought. I just
remembered the STUPID one about the maximum rating, and evidently forgot
all the averaging that goes on. The standard way of dividing the task
period by the number of people on the team is probably better for some
games than what I was thinking (below), since it requires less deviation
from the published rules.

Personally, I think the averaging is a bad idea. I'd have all the team
members roll dice, add successes, and have them split that between time and
quality. (Although, this might result in too many successes--I'll do some
virtual playtesting :).)

> >My system sort of takes this into account because people on the team
with
> >low skills end up not increasing the maximum rating the team can
produce.
> >However, these "dummies" can still throw their dice in with everyone
else
> >to try and reduce time.
>
> Dummies by the rules as they are, only make the job quicker, they don't
make
> it easier. I feel this is accurate as they will most likely only be
writing
> the few bits of code they understand, and will need supervision from the
> smart guys.

BTB, dummies on the team make it harder, which I don't like. Maybe throw
the smarties dice first: no successes here means failure, any successes
gained can be used to increase quality or decrease time. Then, throw the
dummies dice: no successes, no problem, any successes gained can be used
only to reduce time. All ones on the dummies throw means double the
(possibly already reduced by smarties successes) task time.

I'm just gonna have to re-wrte the whole team programming section and
submit it to TSS. As soon as I get done with my current programming
project. [Out team evidently failed the design test, so we were at +2 and
didn't get as many successes as we needed to reach our deadline.]

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 80 >From: Rand Ratinac

>Those skill descriptions are merde. Pardon my French.
>But think about it - characters can start out with
>skill levels of 6 (7 with specialisation) at creation,
>whether their backstory has them as a punk ganger, or
>what. A character with the lowest priority in skills
>(E - 27 points) can know 4 skill at this level at
>creation. A character with the highest priority can
>know 8 skills at this level!

>Those descriptions just don't fly, man.

Agreed! And this is why I said there was something wrong to begin with. If
you cannot write a program higher than your programming skill, and a score
of 8 is "world class", than A: there should never be any programs of any
sort over an 8, and B: these should be few and far between. The cap on
program ratings is therefore bunk.

Point 1:
Since the average IC ratings seem to be around 6-8, and the average utility
seems to be around 3-5, I think IC must be able to reach higher levels with
the same skill. So I propose that IC is bigger, sloppier, less efficient
code. A decker can write a streamlined, memory friendly utility at no
higher than his skill in programming. But that same decker can do the
coding equivalent to breadboarding, getting a much more unwieldy, much
higher rated program. So he could up to double his skill rating by taking
hits in the memory department. This seems like a simple table to derive.

Prog Rating = Skill Base Mp size
Prog rating = 1.5 x Skill 1.5 times base
Prog rating = 2 x Skill 2 times base

Now, someone writing IC code for a gaint Red host, with much of its
processing power devoted to security, does not care if the prog is bigger.
It has memory to spare. Sure, boot time is a bit slower as everything loads
into memory, but that Red Host want to boot very seldom anyway. It wants
big bad boys roaming its datastreams so it never reaches the necessity of
host shutdown. So, if you have memory to waste, you can run ridiculously
huge programs, which will have high ratings. Find me a cyberdeck with
active memory to waste...

This makes debates about the resources for writing code moot. Even if you
steal mainframe time from a corp, and use their bandwidth/power/etc, you
still have to have a place to run that monster once it's executable. Think
about it. You write a rating 12 prog. It is huge. If your skill is only
6...it is twice that again. Not too many decks will fit such a utility. A
Red Host's parallel mainframes, OTOH, could easily accomadate a chunk of
rating 12 IC, even if the programmer had only a skill of 6.

Point 2:
Programming teams can accomplish more in the same time frame than a single
coder. Duh! The canon rules in Matrix are counter-intuitie and contrary to
any kind of realism whatsoever. Simple solution. Teams augment either the
leader's priogramming skill or the work output of the team as a whole. So
they either reduce time, or raise the overall skill. I propose somthing
really simple. Every team member can either raise the team leader's
effective skill by 1 per 2 points of their programming skill (round down),
OR they can divide the programming time by 1 per 2 points of their
programming skill (round down). Typically, as discussed ealier in this
thread, the team leader will not be the one with the highest programming
skill. They will have high organization and leadership skills. We'll leave
the rolls to effectively coordinate the team alone. The canon rules will
probably work as published. So, let's look at applying this.

Team: Learer (skill of 4), 6 programmers of (4, 6, 2, 3, 5, 7)

They could raise the effective skill by +12, or divide the programming time
by 12. They could also work any combination in between. So they could
write a rating 4 program in no time at all, or a rating 16 over, what,
months...a year...more? (I do not have Matrix handy...okay, heck, I don't
have Matrix at all...this is all completely abstract right now). Now, the
same team could sacrifice compactness, steamlining, and red-hot efficiency
and write up to a rating 8 in the same abbreviated time as a basic rating 4.
Or they could divide their efforts between time saving and programming
boost, still make the program large and unwieldy, thus writing a rating 20
and dividing the programming time by 6. Now we are getting into the
capability necessary to mass produce Fairlight Excaliburs, or dump a
behemoth like WindowsXX on the world.

Sure, this can break down if you put 1000 programmers on a single task...but
I just don't see that happening in any realistic scenario. No leader is
good enough to coordinate that many programmers. The TN for the
organizational rolls would be obscene...and unreachable. More importantly,
it works great for PCs. The groups's decker can snag a couple NPCs and
another PC with programming skills, and actually have a chance to write a
decent utility in the downtime between runs.

You can tweak the formula as much as you want to control how much help the
extra programmers provide, and how much of boost the one can get by writing
things bigger and more redundant. Maybe the team members gie a +1 per 3
points in their score (round down)...whatever. Maybe the multiplier for
making things oversized is 1.25 and 1.5 respectively. Ultimately, whatever
you do to them...these rules are simple and quickly applied. And that is
the biggest selling point for me. I do NOT want to be doing calculus to
tell my players what their impromptu coding team can accomplish in two
months of downtime. Not now, not ever. And it discourages the notion that
the average corporate programmer has a score of 8-10 in programming. Most
likely, they have a bunch of scores around 2-4. Which seems about right to
me.

Korishinzo
--skill of 5(7) in Rules Tweaking(Invention) ;p

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Message no. 81 >From: Damion Milliken

> >I understand the karma cost isn't that great, and that >
> >specialization is more likely to happen inside a corp. But, look at >
> >the descriptions of the skill levels on p. 98-99 of SR3. Given >
> >those descriptions, how many people in the world do you really think >
> >have a skill of 8? 9? 10? 12? My answers are ~100, ~12, maybe 1, >
> >and 0.

>Um, I'd say rather a lot more, actually. Lets compare to the analogy of
>sports people. Since we're dealing with a large number of American's,
> >we'll look at Grid Iron. How many players on a professional team? I've
> >no idea, lets say 10 for arguments sake. Each one is "World Class".
>Plus
>all the replacements, lets say another 10. So we're up to 20 so >far. How
>many teams? I dunno, but there seems to be one per major >city... Lets say
>100. So that's 2,000, now. Now lets look at the >recently retired, and the
>up and coming in College Football. We'll be >able to quadruple that figure
>easily. So we've some 5000 people who >could be called "World Class"
>American Footballers. If we were to try >this with a game that was actualy
>played in more than one country >(say, soccer), then we'd have easily
>20 times that. Since programming >is more comparable to soccer than
>American Football (ie, it's done in >rather a large number of countries),
>then a figure more like 50,000
>World Class soccer players might be a fair comparison to the number of
> >World Class programmers. So I'd reckon that your numbers are out by a
> >factor of around 5,000.

Hell...No!! Sorry. I have to disagree with this very very strongly. Every
starting player on a professional team has an 8?! Even with
specializations? I think decidedly not. One in a hundred starting players
on a pro team...maybe. At most. Barry Sanders was one of the greatest
running backs of all time, yet could not get anywhere behind Detroit's
rapidly deteriorating defensive line. He occasionally pulled off amazing
plays for a lot of yards gained, but more often than not, all his yards
happened laterally behind the line of scrimage. What makes the players look
so good? Their team! One good block can make a running back look the
difference between great and ridiculous. One good catch can make a
quaterback look like a genius. One good throw can make the reciever look
brilliant. Athletic teams are a GREAT analogy to support why programming
teams should be able to write higher rating programs than the skill rating
of an individual member. But they are not a good example of a statistically
improbable number of world class individuals in one place. Not in the last.
I would accept that there are 50,000 people in the WORLD, in EVERY FIELD
combined, with a skill rating of 8+. That includes actors, farmers, and
insurence salesmen people. Maybe 5000 worldwide, in all fields, with one
specialization at 10-12. I simple cannot accept skill ratings of 15 or
16...not even specializations. If 8+ is world class...grand mastery...one
has reached, or nearly, reached, the point of diminishing returns. You are
at saturation. An hour of extra practice merely replaces what you lost by
sitting watching TV for an a few hours. It is like the Laws of Anime
Motion. We all know that in Anime, constant thrust = constant velocity. ;>
In any endeavor, constant practice becomes, at some point, maintenance.
Everyone peaks. There are a finite number of years before you are now
practicing just to stay even, as age begins to steal your vigor, your speed,
your strength, and even your memory or other mental faculties. Nothing
human can improve to infinity. Nothing. And I don't think that the SR
rules are inacurrate in placing 8+ as world class either. Under the system
of staging per successes, a skill of 8 is devastating. Even a 4 is pretty
potent, and a 6 is as high as most things should get, outside of a person's
one (maybe 2) areas of expertise. You may notice that very few world class
athletes are also chess grandmasters, pinball wizards, and unix gurus. Most
of them are pretty good at recognizing pain killers by color and size, and
that is about it, outside of being breathtakingly good at their chosen
sport. (j/k about the painkillers...kinda)

Korishinzo
--Liquer recognition (quality): 8(10)
--Memory (that last bar): 3(1) ;p

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Message no. 82 On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Gurth wrote:

> How about the way I already posted? Split a program up into lower-rated
> ones as you see fit. In an extreme case, if you have fifteen people with
> Computer skill 1 you could still go for a rating 15 program by having each
> of them write a rating 1 program and putting them all together.

I know you're going to bite your nails when I say this and call me a
pansy, but I hate rules that require more work than it's worth. I like
rules that are fast, cut-and-dry, and don't require that I break out
my TI-82 and a sheet of notebook paper.

The idea you came up with, while most defenitely pedantic, would
require entirely too much work when it came to considering program
size discretions and a function to map lower rating program sizes to
higher rating program sizes. Sure it can be done, sure it may only
take a few minutes, but I feel that anywhere you can get away with "2
lines instead of 3" you should.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

Message no. 83 On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> I like my method better than you simple mathatical formula, for multiple
> reasons.
> 1) Continuity. a) Your method doesn't handle the degenerate case of a
> one-man team. b)Suddenly because I got one more guy working with me, we
> are half again as good, and it doesn't matter how many more peopple of the
> same skill level we get together.

Heh. Okay, let me quickly define a team as being n individuals
working on a project where n > 1. =)

> 2) I made it up. [Just being honest here...]

Which is totally understandable. Hey, I wasn't getting into this
argument as a way to say whose idea was best. This argument was
basically so that we all came to the fundamental agreement that the
Matrix programming rules with respect to maximum program rating are
bunk. Where you go from there is your own decision. I figure that once
we all agree that the canon statement is without merit we can all just
as happily invent our own house rule to govern.

As you know, I'm a fan of really quick rules that are easily applied
and don't require too much work. In other words, I'm a slacker. ^_^

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

Message no. 84 On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Graht wrote:

> Wile E. Coyote, Super-Genius...
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

You just gave me a new icon, a new character, and an entirely new way
of thinking of the Matrix. =)

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

Message no. 85 According to Da Twink Daddy, on Fri, 19 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> Right. Although in the common case of trying to break a program of m*n
> rating into some number of n rating programs you simply need m^2
> subprograms. Maybe that was to math-y. If you want to break a program
> of rating X into sub-programs of rating Y you'll need (X/Y [keep
> factions])^2 (round up) parts. So, simply square the number of parts
> you'd need from your method.

That only applies if you split it into equal-sized/-rated chunks, though,
right? So breaking a rating 12 program into rating 3 ones gives (12/3)^2 = 16
parts. But if you want to split the same rating 12 program into uneven
chunks, you could end up with this:

Memory Equivalent Rating
36 6
36 6
16 4
16 4
16 4
9 3
9 3
6 3
Totals: 144 12

and have only 8 separate programs making up the rating 12 one.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 86 > I know you're going to bite your nails when I say this and call me a
> pansy, but I hate rules that require more work than it's worth. I like
> rules that are fast, cut-and-dry, and don't require that I break out
> my TI-82 and a sheet of notebook paper.
>
> The idea you came up with, while most defenitely pedantic, would
> require entirely too much work when it came to considering program
> size discretions and a function to map lower rating program sizes to
> higher rating program sizes. Sure it can be done, sure it may only
> take a few minutes, but I feel that anywhere you can get away with "2
> lines instead of 3" you should.
>
[Valeu John EMFA]
Actually with that T!-82, you really wouldn't need the sheet of
paper.
I basicly programed into it all the math (hence, design rules) for
VR 2.0 and Rigger 2.
And I also added a dice roller program (including rule of six).

Oh, and before you ask, they were on my TI-82 that I lost back in
high school.

EMFN John Valeu
-AKA- TimeKeeper

Message no. 87 On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:49:51 -0600
Graht <davidb@****.imcprint.com> wrote:

> > right well what if everyone in my campaign decided they were bored and
> > wanted to play a decker? that makes a team of nine deckers, who between
> > them shouldn't have a problem slyly stealing equivalent resources to a
> > corporate team,
>
> In other words, they wouldn't have a problem stealing an entire corporation.

I don't think these two things are the same :). What, exactly, are these
resources? What would they need, besides the gear (computers, software),
the skills and the time?

--
Bira <ra002585@**.unicamp.br>

Message no. 88 Oh yeah, one final thing from me...I'm still writing a Newbie's guide
to Decking that I hope to have finished sometime in the coming month.
Then I'm going to send it to the SR guys to see how much of it they'll
actually let me post on the internet. If any of you want to, send me
those "house rules" on programming by email (My email addy is
below my name in my .sig) and I'll be happy to include them. Also,
send whatever info you want to accompany them as a way to claim them
as your own (Like, "This is Graht's house rule..." or whatever.
Basically a copyright line. =) ). I'll gladly throw them into the
guide as a part of the appendix.

Note that I won't be pulling the rules off of the list (I pretty
regularly clean my email so it's very likely I've deleted somebody's
rules by now), so I'll only do this for people that send me them by
email.

Downtym |
Email: gte138j@*****.gatech.edu | Post no bills

Message no. 89 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Downtym" <gte138j@*****.gatech.edu>

> > I like my method better than your simple mathatical formula, for
multiple
> > reasons.
> > 1) Continuity. a) Your method doesn't handle the degenerate case of a
> > one-man team. b)Suddenly because I got one more guy working with me,
we
> > are half again as good, and it doesn't matter how many more peopple of
the
> > same skill level we get together.
>
> Heh. Okay, let me quickly define a team as being n individuals
> working on a project where n > 1. =)

I agree that one person isn't really a team--that's why I keep using the
adjective "degenerate". I'm at mathematician at heart, and I like my
functions to have some continuity [using the term EXTREMELY loosely for
other mathematicians out there] If a team (n >= 2) writes program X and we
apply <these rules>, I want a "team" (n == 1) to use the same rules--just
with n=1 already substituted in.

> Hey, I wasn't getting into this
> argument as a way to say whose idea was best.

Good 'cause you'd just lose. (j/k) ;)

> This argument was
> basically so that we all came to the fundamental agreement that the
> Matrix programming rules with respect to maximum program rating are
> bunk.

Which is a point I belive all parties have conceeded.

> As you know, I'm a fan of really quick rules that are easily applied
> and don't require too much work. In other words, I'm a slacker. ^_^

I like good quick rules. That's a flaw I find in my rules--they take far
to long to answer the question. Another is that my original technique
answers the "wrong" question. However, any system that doesn't consider
the size of the team a factor in critically flawed. Almost as bad as one
that didn't take into account skill levels.

I came up with the technique, and I'm good at jugling numbers in my head so
it works out to be quick enough that I could apply it in gameplay.

Someone, not you I'm sure, keeps mentioning rules being too complex if they
require calculus. I agree--whicih is why I've never proposed a rule to
this mailing list (or any other public forum) that required anything more
complecated than a square root and a recipe. My rules DO tend to be math
heavy. I may be one of the few people that didn't think Rigger 2 had too
much math in it. It's not hard math, it's just a lot of it [sometime
quanity is making up for quality but not usually].

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 90 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>

> > Although in the common case of trying to break a program of m*n
> > rating into some number of n rating programs you simply need m^2
> > subprograms. Maybe that was to math-y. If you want to break a program
> > of rating X into sub-programs of rating Y you'll need (X/Y [keep
> > factions])^2 (round up) parts. So, simply square the number of parts
> > you'd need from your method.

> That only applies if you split it into equal-sized/-rated chunks, though,
> right?

Yeah, n (or Y) is an arbitary _constant_ value. It also gives "odd"
results when X is not divisible by Y. [The character(s) may write more code
than they really have to.]

If you want to use uneven chunks you have to so back to the "sum of squares
of part's ratings <= square program rating".

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 91 According to Da Twink Daddy, on Sun, 21 Jul 2002 the word on the street was...

> If you want to use uneven chunks you have to so back to the "sum of
> squares of part's ratings <= square program rating".

Not >= instead of <=? Else you'll end up with a small part of the program
uncoded, if I understand what you mean correctly. (You really need to learn
to speak in game rules jargon ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Little ever changes, if anything at all
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 92 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>

> > If you want to use uneven chunks you have to so back to the "sum of
> > squares of part's ratings <= square program rating".

> Not >= instead of <=? Else you'll end up with a small part of the program
> uncoded, if I understand what you mean correctly. (You really need to
learn
> to speak in game rules jargon ;)

Sorry, yeah, should be at least (>=) instead of at most (<=). Most have
been typing faster than I was thinking.

Da Twink Daddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
ICQ# 514984

Message no. 93 Wouldn't it be easier to say

For system software the max rating is 2 x skill
For MPCP it is 1.5 x skill
and for personal programs it is 1 x skill ?

The high ratings are needed from the conversion in 3rd where the program
just lowers the target number instead of adding dice (like in the loveable
older versions).

System software would be OS stuff (Files, Access, Slave) and IC. Y'know, the
stuff that isn't on a deck anyway.

Then you can use all the existing rules for teams, etc.

Of course, this lets Deus make killer IC :)

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Message no. 94 >From: "Ice Heart" <korishinzo@*******.com>
<Snip>
>Everyone peaks. There are a finite number of years before you are now
>practicing just to stay even, as age begins to steal your vigor, your
>speed, your strength, and even your memory or other mental faculties.
>Nothing human can improve to infinity. Nothing.

Nah!!! I can!
My superiority complex just keeps going from strength to strength, I reckon
it will reach the level you lesser beings would call infinite by about
breakfast next thursday. ;-)

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer