Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:27:48 -0700
Hello Again,

These question came up in the game I GM, and I'm stumped.

1) You can only run one copy of a Daemon,
Can you have more than one agent or frame?
If so how many?

2) Sleaze is a special utility, can otaku run sleaze?

3) Can an Agent run a dumb frame, if it fits?
If so could someone develop an "aircraft carrier"
agent?

4) Can an agent with a DNAB Program design suite
and auto-coder help you code?

I guess our game is a bit matrix heavy ^_^
Thank you in advance for any answers!
-Eric
Message no. 2
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:40:09 -0800
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:27:48 -0700, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> Hello Again,
>
> These question came up in the game I GM, and I'm stumped.
>
> 1) You can only run one copy of a Daemon,
> Can you have more than one agent or frame?
> If so how many?

I did, and I don't recall any rules stating that you couldn't. My
Decker ran mult. armor and medic :)

So easy to install extra Memory.
>
> 2) Sleaze is a special utility, can otaku run sleaze?

I recall them having a special ability that mimics this.

> 3) Can an Agent run a dumb frame, if it fits?
> If so could someone develop an "aircraft carrier"
> agent?

Oh yeah, here's a bonus too, load multple agents to deal with one host
while you nail another portion of the network. Although that's
propably already been suggested.

> 4) Can an agent with a DNAB Program design suite
> and auto-coder help you code?

Yes, but only up to 50% of the code, I think. I also seem to recall a
bonus chance for bugs, if you use bug rules. Depending upon the
sophistication of the agent.

I do not think that it needs to be bult W/ DNAB - although that's a
cool idea - sort of like a built in AI, you could isolate agents to
deal with portions of the code that are "re-usable" to reduce errors
or help with ground work of programs that are similar to previously
coded ones.
Message no. 3
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:50:12 -0700
On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:40 PM, Failhelm wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:27:48 -0700, bandwidthoracle
> <bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
>> Hello Again,
>>
>> These question came up in the game I GM, and I'm stumped.
>>
>> 1) You can only run one copy of a Daemon,
>> Can you have more than one agent or frame?
>> If so how many?

> I did, and I don't recall any rules stating that you couldn't. My
> Decker ran mult. armor and medic :)
>
> So easy to install extra Memory.

Hmm, so if I can run as many agents as I want,
and agents aren't bound to a deck,
does this make the first person to code an agent
the god of the matrix because he can have any
number of servants rolling around? Or am I missing something?
<snip>

Thanks
-Eric
Message no. 4
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:03:40 -0600
On Monday 06 December 2004 06:27 pm, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> Hello Again,
>
> These question came up in the game I GM, and I'm stumped.
>
> 1) You can only run one copy of a Daemon,
> Can you have more than one agent or frame?
> If so how many?

Not *specifically* covered. However, I seem to remember that it is
posisble to load up multiple copies of a single program into active memory
(the only reason to do this is for one-shot programs, normally). Since
frames are simply programs I see no problem with this, but they no take up
a lot of active memory, do they not?

Now, you run into problems with Agents, since (IIRC) they can continue
doing things on the matrix without the decker being on-line. Still, if
simply consider the active memory as "consumed" until the agent shuts
down, I think things still balance.

I've never run a game where a decker wanted to do this though, so it might
upset game balance.

> 2) Sleaze is a special utility, can otaku run sleaze?

IIRC, no. Although, I believe optional rules were presented in one of the
books that allowed Otaku to take Sleaze @ int/2 instead of Armor @ will/2.

> 3) Can an Agent run a dumb frame, if it fits?
> If so could someone develop an "aircraft carrier"
> agent?

I see no problem with this. However, just to clarify, programs loaded into
the frame could not be directly used by the agent. (You could also load
the program into the agent, though.)

> 4) Can an agent with a DNAB Program design suite
> and auto-coder help you code?

Perhaps it's just a house rule I'm remembering, but I believe Programming
Suite with auto-coder can already join a programming team.

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 5
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:48:59 +0000
On Dec 7, 2004, at 20:03, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> Now, you run into problems with Agents, since (IIRC) they can continue
> doing things on the matrix without the decker being on-line. Still, if
> simply consider the active memory as "consumed" until the agent shuts
> down, I think things still balance.

Yes, but then you're running into the problem of memory being consumed
on a system that can be not only off-line, but powered down. In other
words, I've let my Agent loose on the Matrix, then logged out and
switched my deck off. It is obvious at that point that the Agent does
not rely on my deck anymore (and if he does, he'll have to show me how
he does this!)...
Then why would he be consuming memory from my deck once I turn it back
on? Even assuming he is, what's to prevent me from running a program
that frees that memory (I would have thought that by 2060 programming
languages would be past memory leaks :p )?

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 6
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:25:26 -0700
On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:03 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
<snip>
> Perhaps it's just a house rule I'm remembering, but I believe
> Programming
> Suite with auto-coder can already join a programming team.

That's in Matrix, my player was wondering if giving that stuff to an
agent
would allow them to drop scripts.
Thanks for your help.
-Eric
Message no. 7
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:31:57 -0600
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 02:48 pm, Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 20:03, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> > Now, you run into problems with Agents, since (IIRC) they can continue
> > doing things on the matrix without the decker being on-line. Still,
> > if simply consider the active memory as "consumed" until the agent
> > shuts down, I think things still balance.

> Yes, but then you're running into the problem of memory being consumed
> on a system that can be not only off-line, but powered down. In other
> words, I've let my Agent loose on the Matrix, then logged out and
> switched my deck off. It is obvious at that point that the Agent does
> not rely on my deck anymore (and if he does, he'll have to show me how
> he does this!)...

Simple rules: (Not cannonical, but should be workable)

The agent can work without memory, but then the decker cannot command it.
In fact, there is no communication so the decker may very well be awake of
it (and vice-versa). Anytime the agent is working without memory, that
memory is available for other programs.

When the decker is offline or otherwise isolated from the agent (the agent
is not the public nets and the decker is on a private system. GM will
have to decide what level of isolation is needed.

Agents that are working without memory are still as effective, but can be
subject to the same sort of sys-admin initiated wipes that remove batch
scripts from systems. Of course, Agents are more hearty than batch
scripts, and if equiped with the appropriate utilities can employ active
avoidance on these wipes. Where as scripts normally only stay for <24
hours, Agents stay at least 1 day/rating point, at the end of this period
the agent must make a system test (rfc: which one?) to stay active. The
test must be repeated every 24 hours, with a cumulative +2 penalty.

If an Agent goes down due to a wipe, any work it has finished remains in
effect. Any extended/interrogation test that it is currently working on
fails. Any information it has gathered (and not dispatched by some
external means) is lost.

Agents working in memory do not have to worry about wipes and are also in
(effectively, constant) communication with their controlling decker.
(rfc: Agent wipe 'timer' and/or cumulative penalty is reset when put back
into memory? or gradually reduced?)

[I'm not sure I like that agents can run separate from the deck anyway.
It's a nice "idea" but would require corps to run arbitrary code provided
by their users, which opens up a can of legal liability worms.]

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 8
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:39:34 -0600
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 03:25 pm, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:03 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Perhaps it's just a house rule I'm remembering, but I believe
> > Programming
> > Suite with auto-coder can already join a programming team.
>
> That's in Matrix, my player was wondering if giving that stuff to an
> agent
> would allow them to drop scripts.

As far as helping write a single script, I'd say no, because scripts are
usually so small it doesn't help to have multiple people working on it.
[1]

Now, I see no reason why an Agent + DINAB (no need for prog-suite [decker
doesn't need one] or auto-coder [same]) couldn't be asked to write it's
own scripts. (Or even think of that on it's own, assuming a high core
rating.)

--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
bss03@**********.com
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy

[1] Okay, that's not entirely true. However, the scripts mentioned in
Matrix are one-shot scripts for a single purpose, which are generally one
programmer efforts.
Message no. 9
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:12:07 -0700
On Dec 7, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
<Snip>
>
> Now, I see no reason why an Agent + DINAB (no need for prog-suite
> [decker
> doesn't need one] or auto-coder [same]) couldn't be asked to write it's
> own scripts. (Or even think of that on it's own, assuming a high core
> rating.)
>
> --
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
> bss03@**********.com
> ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
>
> [1] Okay, that's not entirely true. However, the scripts mentioned in
> Matrix are one-shot scripts for a single purpose, which are generally
> one
> programmer efforts.

Ok, that makes sense.
We were just worried that an agent/frame wouldn't have
the proper knowledge skill. I think my players can finally put this one
to rest.
Thanks!
Message no. 10
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:55:45 -0600
On Monday 06 December 2004 10:50 pm, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:40 PM, Failhelm wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:27:48 -0700, bandwidthoracle
> >
> > <bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> >> 1) You can only run one copy of a Daemon,
> >> Can you have more than one agent or frame?
> >> If so how many?
> >
> > I did, and I don't recall any rules stating that you couldn't. My
> > Decker ran mult. armor and medic :)

I see how multiple medic and shield programs would be good (they degrade
with use); how did your GM handle multiple armor programs?

> > So easy to install extra Memory.

Yes, I'm not sure memory should have the linear cost SR gives it.
Something, more exponential (or at least quadratic) would be more in line
with current reality. Or simply a hard limit based on MPCP.

> Hmm, so if I can run as many agents as I want,
> and agents aren't bound to a deck,
> does this make the first person to code an agent
> the god of the matrix because he can have any
> number of servants rolling around? Or am I missing something?
> <snip>

Cannonically, I don't think so. Simply because canon makes no allowances
for freeing the active memory that an agent is using--even after the
decker logs off and the agent is still online. So, you are limited by
active memory, and useful agents are quite big.

Under my rules, it would be possible to have a large number of agents, but
you couldn't command them with a free action if you aren't using active
memory on them *AND* the more copies of the same agent you have running on
a host (even if they've been given different commands) the more quickly
the agents will have to test to avoid being hit by the 'detached script'
wipe. [I'm thinking of the SR equivalent of running a script that kills
every process not run by root (or a known daemon account) without a tty.]

--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
bss03@**********.com
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 11
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:14:16 -0700
On Dec 8, 2004, at 1:55 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
<Snip>
>> Hmm, so if I can run as many agents as I want,
>> and agents aren't bound to a deck,
>> does this make the first person to code an agent
>> the god of the matrix because he can have any
>> number of servants rolling around? Or am I missing something?
>
> Cannonically, I don't think so. Simply because canon makes no
> allowances
> for freeing the active memory that an agent is using--even after the
> decker logs off and the agent is still online. So, you are limited by
> active memory, and useful agents are quite big.
>
> Under my rules, it would be possible to have a large number of agents,
> but
> you couldn't command them with a free action if you aren't using active
> memory on them *AND* the more copies of the same agent you have
> running on
> a host (even if they've been given different commands) the more quickly
> the agents will have to test to avoid being hit by the 'detached
> script'
> wipe. [I'm thinking of the SR equivalent of running a script that
> kills
> every process not run by root (or a known daemon account) without a
> tty.]
>
> --
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
> bss03@**********.com
> ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy

So would you allow a player to get away with having agents "rest"
somewhere the
decker had paid for like a private space on Helix? That's how my
deckers have
been doing stuff. Although, this kinda negates the negative part of
leaving agents
out there.
Thanks
-Eric
Message no. 12
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:09:31 -0600
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 03:14 pm, bandwidthoracle

<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> So would you allow a player to get away with having agents "rest"
> somewhere the
> decker had paid for like a private space on Helix? That's how my
> deckers have
> been doing stuff. Although, this kinda negates the negative part of
> leaving agents
> out there.

That's an interesting option and feasible. I was assuming the agent
stayed on one host (or a system of hosts with a shared tally) for it's
lifecycle (like a script). Moving hosts are a different and difficult
beast and may be difficult to adjudicate fairly.

Moving around through the 'trix requires many rolls and, despite some
"intellegence" agents are not going to be as adept as decision-making and
planning as a PC (probably) -- plus they may not have the right utilities
(so their target numbers may be gargantuan).

In any case, I'd allow the agents to recover on a home host, but there
would be a risk that and agent would not be able to get home, for whatever
reason. [Also, agents could be "captured" and decompiled to get the home
location...] If it because abused I might add more penalties, it should
be possible but players shouldn't have access to (effectively) SKs
(normally).
Message no. 13
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:34:31 -0700
On Dec 8, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
<snip>
>
> In any case, I'd allow the agents to recover on a home host, but there
> would be a risk that and agent would not be able to get home, for
> whatever
> reason. [Also, agents could be "captured" and decompiled to get the
> home
> location...] If it because abused I might add more penalties, it
> should
> be possible but players shouldn't have access to (effectively) SKs
> (normally).

I agree about the SK's, but I was under the impression agents where
smart
enough that people let them loose on searches, and just let them report
back to somewhere. I thought that's why you got such a big target
reduction
when you use one to aid a search. Essentially you where giving it a
search
criteria and letting it go and have fun. So I guess my question is:
Where
does Agent end and Knowbot begin?
Thanks
-Eric, who has a lot of decker PC's
Message no. 14
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:04:39 -0600
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 07:34 pm, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > In any case, I'd allow the agents to recover on a home host, but there
> > would be a risk that and agent would not be able to get home, for
> > whatever
> > reason. [Also, agents could be "captured" and decompiled to get the
> > home
> > location...] If it because abused I might add more penalties, it
> > should
> > be possible but players shouldn't have access to (effectively) SKs
> > (normally).
>
> I agree about the SK's, but I was under the impression agents where
> smart
> enough that people let them loose on searches, and just let them report
> back to somewhere. I thought that's why you got such a big target
> reduction
> when you use one to aid a search. Essentially you where giving it a
> search
> criteria and letting it go and have fun.

I don't think that's quite the case. It's not that you let an SK loose on
a search, but that it is quite good at processing large amounts of
information quickly.

First you give it some databases, keywords and a timer. It looks though
all this information and suggests other keywords to trim down your search
or alternative keywords to add to your search. In addition, it's able to
tell you why it's suggested certain keywords and also give you an example
of what kind of hits you might get with that keyword. You guess a few
keywords and send it out, and start reading the top (or whatever suits
your fancy) kits of the first search. When you get done reading what you
have, or the agent decides it should get more input from you, there's a
signal between the icons and you can "discuss" the problem again.

While an agent can search by *itself*, it might not some back with the best
stuff, since it won't be able to refine the search during the
interrogation operation, so if it starts out vague (penalties) it stays
vague). Also, while it can break the results into categories, it can't
read your mind and choose to correct category for your search, so once it
has run through interrogations on all the databases, it won't really know
what the next step is, or understand what it is reading.

Of course, we aren't given the reason behind the bonuses provided by the
agent, so it's a flavor the GM has to provide. But, note that a search
done *solely* by that agent doesn't get a bonus (IIRC). I think there's a
unique synergy provided by a human decker and a dog-child level
intelligence program that processes data EXTREMELY quickly.

> So I guess my question is:
> Where
> does Agent end and Knowbot begin?

IMO, it's mostly size/rating, with SK ratings not corresponding directly to
Agent rating. I'm not sure if we are even given sizes for SKs, but I'd
guestimate that an Agent that is roughly the size of an SK can be able as
smart.

Also, SKs have hosts supporting them, with special software to heal the SK.
I suppose medic would work on an agent, but there is probably some limit
to the number of times the same medic program and heal the same agent
program--no matter how many times one or the other has been reloaded.
(Well, maybe only for some sort of balance. I'm really not sure how
computer programs could be "hurt" but not "dead" without being able to

"self-repair".)

Of course, AIs are completely different because of the X-factor. They show
understanding of the data they process AND have an amazing ability to
calculate (anything: from complex forulae and statistics to long
cause-and-effect or deductive chains; perfectly, in seconds). They are
certainly as intelligent as their creators but they may not follow human
thought exactly, as their perspective on things may be radically
different. Also, they may show emotion and creativity, although weather
they are the crocodile tears of a phyciopathic beast or the wondrus chords
of a benevolent god is something we may never know.

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 15
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 00:38:48 -0700
On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:04 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
<snip>
>> So I guess my question is:
>> Where
>> does Agent end and Knowbot begin?
>
> IMO, it's mostly size/rating, with SK ratings not corresponding
> directly to
> Agent rating. I'm not sure if we are even given sizes for SKs, but I'd
> guestimate that an Agent that is roughly the size of an SK can be able
> as
> smart.
>
> Also, SKs have hosts supporting them, with special software to heal
> the SK.
> I suppose medic would work on an agent, but there is probably some
> limit
> to the number of times the same medic program and heal the same agent
> program--no matter how many times one or the other has been reloaded.
> (Well, maybe only for some sort of balance. I'm really not sure how
> computer programs could be "hurt" but not "dead" without being
able to
> "self-repair".)
>
> Of course, AIs are completely different because of the X-factor. They
> show
> understanding of the data they process AND have an amazing ability to
> calculate (anything: from complex forulae and statistics to long
> cause-and-effect or deductive chains; perfectly, in seconds). They are
> certainly as intelligent as their creators but they may not follow
> human
> thought exactly, as their perspective on things may be radically
> different. Also, they may show emotion and creativity, although
> weather
> they are the crocodile tears of a phyciopathic beast or the wondrus
> chords
> of a benevolent god is something we may never know.

Interesting, I'd always seen agents/frames as being icon files, with
code as
its back-end instead of a person, and as being hard to code because it
needs
to fit in the space of the part of the persona that runs remotely on
new hosts.
They get taught how to use. Whereas I had imagined a knowbot being a
lot of processor power (neural nets/etc) that had access to the matrix
the same
way a decker would.

I do agree with you AI's are knowbot's with "ghosts". but I'm not sure
I'd let Agents
use medic programs, they don't have a hard copy to compare to, unless
of course
they are linked with a deck.

I do appreciate your point of view, by the dumpshock forum I was
beginning to
think that I was the only GM who used Matrix (My favorite SR Book)
Thanks again
-Eric
Message no. 16
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:12:27 -0800 (PST)
> Under my rules, it would be possible to have a large number of
> agents, but
> you couldn't command them with a free action if you aren't using
> active
> memory on them *AND* the more copies of the same agent you have
> running on
> a host (even if they've been given different commands) the more
> quickly
> the agents will have to test to avoid being hit by the 'detached
> script'
> wipe. [I'm thinking of the SR equivalent of running a script that
> kills
> every process not run by root (or a known daemon account) without a
> tty.]

I think your 'detached script' wipe amounts to black IC (or very dark
gray) under SR rules. It is analagous to a multi-threaded kill
script/batch in today's world, spawning one instance of kill (.exe)
per process it wants to terminate. In SR terms, the host is running
a script (White IC, most likely) to detect processes that appear
stranded/inappropriate (hmmm, a print job owned by a remote admin
instead of the print server, and it's been running for about 200
times the average spool time)... aka, processes/anomalies that have
racked up too high a security tally... and sending Black IC (I think
kill pretty much sums it up) to purge the process/anomaly. Hence, I
would not create any additional rules for your wipe procedure or its
handling of agents/frames. I think the rules already handle (albeit
abstractly) everything just fine.

I treat agents as analagous to leaving a scheduled task or at/cron
job running instead of a command line batch. If I login in remotely
to a server and start a command line batch, it will terminate when I
log out. I can instead leave a cron/at job in place, which will run
even when I log out. In effect, I transfer ownership of my process
from remote admin to local admin. Hence, when I log out of a system,
agents left behind draw their processing power from the host, and run
(without deviation) whatever is in their command line parameters.
While I am present in the system, running utilities, I get the effect
of being able to change the command line on the fly. Once I leave,
the process does its thing as best it can. Hence, agents (cron jobs)
are nowhere near as versatile as the decker (riding the bleeding edge
of the command line, as it were) and much less adept at avoiding
scripts that detect and purge errant processes (Intrusion
Countermeasures).

More to the point, the decking rules are necessarily abstracted
because the idea is to let anyone play a hacker, not just people who
actually understand what hacking entails. Much as with the rules for
engaging in a gun duel or conducting a car chase are abstracted to
allow people with no combat experience or stunt driver training to
enjoy the vicarious thrill of said pursuits. All this discussion of
how agents function, and what the host can do about them, is really
just better flavor text. Decking in a game where the GM can spout
this stuff with reasonable versimilitude will sound more like real
hacking than the hacking done in most movies. [[And may, incidently,
lose the majority of players.]] You can draw on real world analogy
for hacking as much or as little as you and your players desire, but
extra mechanics should be a last resort, house rules to fix actual
weaknesses of the canon rules. The less dice that have to rolled for
a single action the better. That said, if the rules for agents are
actually broken (I don't know because no one has played a decent
decker in FOREVER in my games), this could be the foundation for a
good house rule.

======Korishinzo
--Realization: I just said, "You guys are putting way too much
thought into this... or you aren't, in which case, carry on." *grin*
Time to get back to work.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
Message no. 17
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:15:40 -0200
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:12:27 -0800 (PST), Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think your 'detached script' wipe amounts to black IC (or very dark
> gray) under SR rules. It is analagous to a multi-threaded kill
> script/batch in today's world, spawning one instance of kill (.exe)
> per process it wants to terminate.

Killer IC is white, if I recall correctly. It can damage an icon, but
all it really does to a metahuman decker is break his connection and
give him a nasty headache. It could only be considered black Ice if it
actually tried to kill the human decker.

To a program, the difference between the two could be pretty much
non-existent, since any crash would remove it from the game. But white
ice is cheaper and brings less legal hassle :).


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 18
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:27:12 -0500
At 11:12 AM 12/9/2004, Ice Heart wrote:
> > Under my rules, it would be possible to have a large number of
> > agents, but
> > you couldn't command them with a free action if you aren't using
> > active
> > memory on them *AND* the more copies of the same agent you have
> > running on
> > a host (even if they've been given different commands) the more
> > quickly
> > the agents will have to test to avoid being hit by the 'detached
> > script'
> > wipe. [I'm thinking of the SR equivalent of running a script that
> > kills
> > every process not run by root (or a known daemon account) without a
> > tty.]
>
>I think your 'detached script' wipe amounts to black IC (or very dark
>gray) under SR rules. It is analagous to a multi-threaded kill
>script/batch in today's world, spawning one instance of kill (.exe)
>per process it wants to terminate. In SR terms, the host is running

[Snip!]

I had this conversation elsewhere... The short version is:

White IC targets software.
Grey IC targets hardware.
Black IC targets wetware.

This process kill script targets software; it is /very/ white.

Of course, it wouldn't even be IC at all. Something like this would be part
of the base OS of the host. There's a reason that Matrix includes Null
Operation - You simply call for the frame to make a Null Operation every
period of time equal to X. Eventually, it will rack up Security Tally and
trigger IC.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 19
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:53:40 -0600
On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:38 am, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:04 PM, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> So I guess my question is:
> >> Where
> >> does Agent end and Knowbot begin?
> >
> > IMO, it's mostly size/rating, with SK ratings not corresponding
> > directly to
> > Agent rating. I'm not sure if we are even given sizes for SKs, but
> > I'd guestimate that an Agent that is roughly the size of an SK can be
> > able as
> > smart.
>
> Interesting, I'd always seen agents/frames as being icon files, with
> code as
> its back-end instead of a person, and as being hard to code because it
> needs
> to fit in the space of the part of the persona that runs remotely on
> new hosts.

I'm not saying that Agents are really that unintelligent. I'm just saying
that they can't read your mind and refine a search you sent them on
without your help. When the agent's speed and organizational skills are
paired with the decker ability to make independent decisions it's much
easier to filter through data.

Otaku's Information sortiliage is similar, in my mind. But, instead of
talking to an agent/daemon their ghost/resonance adds the organizational
skills and speed, at a subconscious level.

> They get taught how to use. Whereas I had imagined a knowbot being a
> lot of processor power (neural nets/etc) that had access to the matrix
> the same
> way a decker would.

I don't think that's an unreasonable point of view given what is in cannon.
However, I saw SKs, like agents, as separate from their hardware so that
even if their home host was down, SKs could continue working.

> > Also, SKs have hosts supporting them, with special software to heal
> > the SK.
> > I suppose medic would work on an agent, but there is probably some
> > limit
> > to the number of times the same medic program and heal the same agent
> > program--no matter how many times one or the other has been reloaded.
> > (Well, maybe only for some sort of balance. I'm really not sure how
> > computer programs could be "hurt" but not "dead" without
being able to
> > "self-repair".)
> >
> > Of course, AIs are completely different because of the X-factor.
> I do agree with you AI's are knowbot's with "ghosts". but I'm not sure
> I'd let Agents
> use medic programs, they don't have a hard copy to compare to, unless
> of course
> they are linked with a deck.

Interesting. What "hard copy" does a medic program compare to when it
restores a decker's icon? MPCP? Would you limit the effectiveness of
medic program when run against a burnt (grey IC) MPCP?

If the agents *rating* where somehow affected, I wouldn't allow medic to
restore it, since that indicates (to me) all copies of some piece of
logic, which is optional but an improvement, are gone. However, icon
damage indicates some redundant code paths are missing and/or others are
damaged so while the icon preforms at the same level of sophistication, it
does so slower. Medic is external code that determines what code paths
are damaged/missing and replaces them with genetic variants (but logical
duplicates) of the undamaged copies. [This is why I don't understand why
icon's are not self-repairing; just make medic an internal routine.]

Of course, there's no need to be that specific. It's like the magic
system, don't give how a spell works, just give what it does, otherwise
you open up wierd combination effects that can break balance an require a
physicist/chemist/programmer/etc. to adjudicate. Medic restores damage to
a icon's "health", not it's rating; it doesn't mention any other
restrictions (er, not looking at the book right now, so you might 2x check
that) so that's what it does, weather to agents or deckers.

> I do appreciate your point of view, by the dumpshock forum I was
> beginning to
> think that I was the only GM who used Matrix (My favorite SR Book)

I don't get to play that much, but I've always been a Computer Progammer
that *likes* the matrix rules, even if they do lack realism in places.

Gurth also seems to use the Matrix some, and has one house rule in
particular that makes it easier to integrate deckers into low power
campaigns / add decking skills later.

Many times I've thought about making a MUD that was strongly influencened
by the SR matrix rules and flavor. Of course, it would be hard to do so
without stepping into copyright quagmire AND MUDs take a seriously long
time to write (which I don't have) unless you are working from an existing
code base.

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 20
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:16:12 -0800 (PST)
> Many times I've thought about making a MUD that was strongly
> influencened by the SR matrix rules and flavor. Of course, it
> would be hard to do so without stepping into copyright quagmire AND
> MUDs take a seriously long time to write (which I don't have)
> unless you are working from an existing code base.

I have been working on a txt-based SR MUD with one of my table top
gamers for about 3 years now. As we are both busy with other
pursuits like school and work, it is slow going. We don't intend to
sell the code we generate, or profit in any way from the game. Thus,
I don't believe the lawyers at Microdaft would have any good reason
to come after us. I have tried to contact legal at Wizkids in the
past to ask if it would be a problem for us to put this MUD up and
say "a Shadowrun MUD", or refer to things in the MUD by copywrited
names like "the Matrix". The closest thing to a response I have
gotten is "we'd have to see it before we know if we'd okay it".
Again, I think since there is no profit getting generated by this
effort, it probably is not worth the effort of the lawyers to get all
lawsuit-happy. If and when we are ready to welcome play-testers into
a hosted MUD, I'll go back to Wizkids and say, "come check this out".
We'll see what happens from there.

======Korishinzo
--Crossing bridges as we come to them.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
Message no. 21
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:20:50 -0600
On Thursday 09 December 2004 10:12 am, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
wrote:

> > I'm thinking of the SR equivalent of running a script that
> > kills
> > every process not run by root (or a known daemon account) without a
> > tty.
>
> I think your 'detached script' wipe amounts to black IC (or very dark
> gray) under SR rules.

Nope, it only attacks software so it's white IC. I also don't imagine it
has an icon either.

> It is analagous to a multi-threaded kill
> script/batch in today's world, spawning one instance of kill (.exe)
> per process it wants to terminate.

<geek>
Heck, mutli-threading it is a bit heavy handed. Sending a singal to a
process is like one kernel call; just iterate though the processes,
perform a test and maybe that call, the program would be tiny.
</geek>

> I think the rules already handle (albeit
> abstractly) everything just fine.

Well, I see detached agents as just simply more sophistcated "Command
Sets" (from p. 87-8, Matrix). Instead of being instantly detectable and
removable by anyone who looks, they would hide and resist based on their
rating. The free days + tests is really an abstraction of that, though
maybe not a very good one. I don't think IC even come into play, though
they would if the agent racks up enough security tally.

> I treat agents as analagous to leaving a scheduled task or at/cron
> job running instead of a command line batch.

Well, in SR terms both of these are "Command Sets".

> If I login in remotely
> to a server and start a command line batch, it will terminate when I
> log out.

Not neccessarily. You can start a task, then detach it from your terminal
and logout and it will continue, until it completes. I've done this
multiple times as root (normal users can do it as well) so that, even with
processes I initiated running, there are no open root consoles.

> Hence, when I log out of a system,
> agents left behind draw their processing power from the host, and run
> (without deviation) whatever is in their command line parameters.
> While I am present in the system, running utilities, I get the effect
> of being able to change the command line on the fly. Once I leave,
> the process does its thing as best it can. Hence, agents (cron jobs)
> are nowhere near as versatile as the decker (riding the bleeding edge
> of the command line, as it were) and much less adept at avoiding
> scripts that detect and purge errant processes (Intrusion
> Countermeasures).

In my mind agents are sophisticated enough to do well at matrix combat and
evasion techniques, but without a decker in control they will tend to
single-mindly pursue their last given command.

When they are still loaded in the deck, they are in "constant"
communication with the decker so the decker can refine/change their task,
as needed.

> More to the point, the decking rules are necessarily abstracted
> because the idea is to let anyone play a hacker, not just people who
> actually understand what hacking entails.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I do have a working knowledge of both programming
and sys-admining. So, whenever I'm thinking of a house rule, I'd like to
provide a justification based on that. [1] When talking about combat
(balistic, ranged, melee), explosives, or flying VTOLs, I know I have no
idea what I'm talking about so I let someone else come up with the house
rules. If I *have* to, I could adjudicate stuff on those topics, but I'd
stay very close to the core rules.

--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
bss03@**********.com
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy

[1] And trust me, trying to unify my understanding on computing systems
with the fictional flavor of SR is sometimes mind-bending--occationally to
the point of hand-waving and saying "it works there, even though it turns
out that doesn't work here."
Message no. 22
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:35:53 +0000
On Dec 9, 2004, at 19:20, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> [1] And trust me, trying to unify my understanding on computing systems
> with the fictional flavor of SR is sometimes
> mind-bending--occationally to
> the point of hand-waving and saying "it works there, even though it
> turns
> out that doesn't work here."

I gave up on this a looooooooong time ago. That doesn't prevent my GM
from still regularly asking me "how would [insert SR computer question
here] work?", even though I have very little knowledge of the actual SR
Matrix rules. To which I usually answer "Not. But look in the book if
you want rules on how it does."

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 23
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:25:16 -0800
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:55:45 -0600, Da Twink Daddy
<DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com> wrote:
> On Monday 06 December 2004 10:50 pm, bandwidthoracle
>
>
> <bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:40 PM, Failhelm wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:27:48 -0700, bandwidthoracle
> > >
> > > <bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
> > >> 1) You can only run one copy of a Daemon,
> > >> Can you have more than one agent or frame?
> > >> If so how many?
> > >
> > > I did, and I don't recall any rules stating that you couldn't. My
> > > Decker ran mult. armor and medic :)
>
> I see how multiple medic and shield programs would be good (they degrade
> with use); how did your GM handle multiple armor programs?

It was never play tested well as my GMs eyes would glaze over whenever
Simple Simon (my character) jacked in. My GM is/was not a computer guy
@ all and many of the concepts were a bit to foreign to him. Running
in his campaign you'd think that everyone had UV Hosts with an
unlimited Security budget. Basically we did it like Virtual Stacked
armor. So we took it one program at a time. Through clever use of of
Agents, simple script and other automations I was able to re-load my
armor behind the damaged one to keep my icon in tip top shape.

> > > So easy to install extra Memory.
>
> Yes, I'm not sure memory should have the linear cost SR gives it.
> Something, more exponential (or at least quadratic) would be more in line
> with current reality. Or simply a hard limit based on MPCP.

Agreed, I'm in the computer industry and I mulled over a lot of how SR
handles the matrix and I think that this is a major loop hole. I was
able to cheaply equip a deck with 20,000 active memory. My character
built the deck and had some good funds and the right tools/

Which is odd, because the cost of Memory in those wrist computers and
the like are insane.

The other was the fact that a Decker ain't nothing without his deck
and utilities, minimizing skill importance. I had a skilled decker
loose his deck, it seemened like his drawers were dropped and he was
left swinging in the wind. - Sorry for the Off-Topic rant
Message no. 24
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:34:41 -0800 (PST)
> The other was the fact that a Decker ain't nothing without his deck
> and utilities, minimizing skill importance. I had a skilled decker
> loose his deck, it seemened like his drawers were dropped and he
> was left swinging in the wind. - Sorry for the Off-Topic rant

I am experimenting with a house rule that allows a decker to code
one-shot utilities on the fly. Basically, they "stall" a moment when
confronted with a system test for which they have no utility that
helps. This will grant the system at least one automatic success
against them (IOW, increment the sec tally by 1). This is due to the
suspiciously high delay in response from the decker's icon to system
queries. The decker makes a Computer test against a TN of the rating
effect they want. The host makes a counter test, with one automatic
success (slow response from icon). Any of the decker's successes
after the first can be used to effectively suppress successes by the
host, but the host will always get at least the one automatic
success. Some utility effects will require extra successes to be
effective. For example, attack utilities require two successes per
Damage Level desired. The new one-shot utility then applies to the
system test the decker has to make. The decker is basically trying
to write a script line by line at the command prompt versus loading a
batch or executable at the command prompt. It is a necessarily
slower process and the resulting script cannot be reused.

e.g. SkryptKitty is pulling a little Matrix mayhem when the system
launches a counter-attack. The problem is, she is jacked into a
public telecom, and has no utils handy. As the IC closes in, she
backpedals, fingers flying over the telecoms keyboard. It is not a
real tough system, so she figures a rating 4 attack util will do, if
she can pull off at least a Moderate attack. <Player tosses 10 dice,
5 for comp skill and 5 from hacking pool, gains 5 successes.> The
system gets a free test because of the delay for her to code the
script. It gets 2 successes, adding 3 to the sec tally. SkryptKitty
only needed 4 succeses for her rating 4 Moderate attack utility, so
she throws the extra one at the system, negating one of its
successes. The +2 sec tally still hurts, reinforcements will be
coming. Now she lets the IC close and they clash. Her script fires.
Her test generates enough net successes to blow the IC into
data-shrapnel. The system garners another few security tally points.
New IC is on the way. SkryptKitty flees, disarmed once more as the
attack script vanishes into the ether along with the IC it killed.

This rule is still getting tested, but has worked well to date. It
is by no means a good alternative for a deck and utilities, but
allows deckers some flexibility when they don't have these things.

======Korishinzo
--enjoy




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 25
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:57:27 -0600
On Friday 10 December 2004 10:34 am, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>

wrote:
> > The other was the fact that a Decker ain't nothing without his deck
> > and utilities, minimizing skill importance. I had a skilled decker
> > loose his deck, it seemened like his drawers were dropped and he
> > was left swinging in the wind. - Sorry for the Off-Topic rant

I find that realistic. As a programmer, I can do *very* little without a
computer and software, despite having the same about of skill I had before
they were gone.

What I find unrealistic is the huge cost of even a good, legal,
cyberterminal. Assuming 1nY ~= 1$US, a low end system is going to be $500
(or less) and a drool-worthy system is only going to cost $5000. No one
is going to carry around a system that is worth 1.5million! Not because
you can't carry it around, but because 1.5million requires a security
guard or two to move around unless you *want* to be robbed.

Then, of course, there's the whole software costs issue. I have multiple
programming suites, a good number of applications, a lots of "hacker"
tools available to me for free. None of the software on this computer (or
my laptop) has cost me a dime. And updating all the software to the
latest and greatest versions is 2 console commands!

Understandably, if all the software you want is free, it doesn't make
sense to even keep track of the software you are using. But, not all the
software I want is available for free, to me. For example, can anyone
suggest a free way to transcode WMV into MPEG on linux? Or, WMA lossless
to FLAC and then play the FLAC on a portable player? Even if there is
one available, I just don't know about it. What about a lossless video
codec that I can use with HD-TV (doesn't have to be realtime!)? I don't
even think that's currently done.

> I am experimenting with a house rule that allows a decker to code
> one-shot utilities on the fly.

Does this rule (when applied to combat) replace the Improvized Combat
rules on p122 of Matrix?

I'm okay with one-shot utilities (of all types) being coded and used on
the fly, but I don't want it to get out of hand.

Also, even one-shot utilities are multiple Mp, which is a lot of code to
hack out.
Message no. 26
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:15:02 +0100
According to Da Twink Daddy, on Friday 10 December 2004 19:57 the word on
the street was...

> What I find unrealistic is the huge cost of even a good, legal,
> cyberterminal. Assuming 1nY ~= 1$US, a low end system is going to be
> $500 (or less) and a drool-worthy system is only going to cost $5000.
> No one is going to carry around a system that is worth 1.5million! Not
> because you can't carry it around, but because 1.5million requires a
> security guard or two to move around unless you *want* to be robbed.

Would you even walk around outdoors with a US$5000 computer? I know that if
I'd spent that kind of money the thing would not leave my house...

What I tried a few years ago was to drop the costs of computers by a factor
50 -- just divide all cyberdeck costs by 50 and you get what are IMHO
reasonably realistic figures. The problem then became that both of my
players who suddenly became interested in the Matrix very quickly had
decks with everything rated at 10+, which totally threw off the balance of
decking. Simply upgrading all host and IC ratings is of course a solution,
but only has the effect of rolling lots of dice to arrive at an outcome
you'd also get with fewer dice on both sides :(

> Understandably, if all the software you want is free, it doesn't make
> sense to even keep track of the software you are using. But, not all
> the software I want is available for free, to me. For example, can
> anyone suggest a free way to transcode WMV into MPEG on linux?

Not that I've tried, but maybe mencoder? IIRC it doesn't support the all
WMV versions, though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: 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. 27
From: adamj@*********.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:20:52 -0500
On 10-Dec-04, at 2:15 PM, Gurth wrote:

> Would you even walk around outdoors with a US$5000 computer? I know
> that if
> I'd spent that kind of money the thing would not leave my house...

If they could put a G5 in a Powerbook, yes. For now, I'll settle with
the $3000 one. ;-)

Adam
--
Adam Jury
Editor, The Shadowrun Supplemental :: http://tss.dumpshock.com
Message no. 28
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:45:57 -0600
On Friday 10 December 2004 01:15 pm, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Da Twink Daddy, on Friday 10 December 2004 19:57 the word
> on the street was...
>
> > What I find unrealistic is the huge cost of even a good, legal,
> > cyberterminal. Assuming 1nY ~= 1$US, a low end system is going to be
> > $500 (or less) and a drool-worthy system is only going to cost $5000.
> > No one is going to carry around a system that is worth 1.5million! Not
> > because you can't carry it around, but because 1.5million requires a
> > security guard or two to move around unless you *want* to be robbed.
>
> Would you even walk around outdoors with a US$5000 computer? I know that
> if I'd spent that kind of money the thing would not leave my house...

I'm going to have to disagree here and side with Adam. My laptop only cost
$1000, but if it was a $5000 machine, I'd still carry it around. (I would
be more cautious though.) That's near my limit though, I wouldn't buy a
$15000 laptop because I wouldn't want to carry it around.

Now, when it comes to desktops and special events (gaming conventions)
bringing a system that has $10000 invested in it doesn't seem to extreme
with some upper limit around $25000. But, again, when things get that
expensive I'd start installing security features. (Bike chain through the
case and table/desk maybe?)

Now I'm wishing that I had a computer that was worth these amounts.
*drool* I have a 6-yr old gateway 4200 (Still a nice computer, but you
can get a better one for $500 now) and a Laptop from Christmas 2002
originally $1000.

Specifically, I'd like to go G5 for the laptop and some sort of multi G5
monstrosity for the desktop. G5s get you the most performance/$, at least
in bulk. Check out the GFlops/$ rating on the top 500 -- you'll notice
it's significantly lower on all the G5 based machines.

Unfortunately, I have to be able to write code targeting J2EE and .Net.
And I'm not sure on the avialability of those APIs under Gentoo/PPC. (I
think G5 is PPC... Bleh, /me is *not* a hardware geek.)

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 29
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:31:40 +0000
On Dec 10, 2004, at 19:45, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

>> Would you even walk around outdoors with a US$5000 computer? I know
>> that
>> if I'd spent that kind of money the thing would not leave my house...
>
> I'm going to have to disagree here and side with Adam. My laptop only
> cost
> $1000, but if it was a $5000 machine, I'd still carry it around. (I
> would
> be more cautious though.) That's near my limit though, I wouldn't buy
> a
> $15000 laptop because I wouldn't want to carry it around.

True. And in Shadowrun, the shittiest cyberdeck in the world, the
Allegiance Sigma, the one with which you get in trouble when cracking
Blue hosts, costs a whopping 20000¥. Without any software. (damn, where
has Linux gone when we need it!)

> Unfortunately, I have to be able to write code targeting J2EE and .Net.
> And I'm not sure on the avialability of those APIs under Gentoo/PPC. (I
> think G5 is PPC... Bleh, /me is *not* a hardware geek.)

Yes, all Macs have been using PowerPC processors for quite a while now
(ever since System 7, IIRC).
Apparently, the availability of Mono for Gentoo-PPC is the same as for
Gentoo-x86 (that is, ~). As for J2EE, I don't know about Gentoo, but it
works perfectly under OS X, and so does Eclipse (best IDE ever, by the
way). And I suppose Apple will be upgrading its version of the JRE from
1.4.2 to 1.5.x when Tiger is released (which should be in a couple of
months).

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"


--
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 30
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:30:49 +0000
On Dec 10, 2004, at 19:45, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

>> Would you even walk around outdoors with a US$5000 computer? I know
>> that
>> if I'd spent that kind of money the thing would not leave my house...
>
> I'm going to have to disagree here and side with Adam. My laptop only
> cost
> $1000, but if it was a $5000 machine, I'd still carry it around. (I
> would
> be more cautious though.) That's near my limit though, I wouldn't buy
> a
> $15000 laptop because I wouldn't want to carry it around.

True. And in Shadowrun, the shittiest cyberdeck in the world, the
Allegiance Sigma, the one with which you get in trouble when cracking
Blue hosts, costs a whopping 20000¥. Without any software. (damn, where
has Linux gone when we need it!)

> Unfortunately, I have to be able to write code targeting J2EE and .Net.
> And I'm not sure on the avialability of those APIs under Gentoo/PPC. (I
> think G5 is PPC... Bleh, /me is *not* a hardware geek.)

Yes, all Macs have been using PowerPC processors for quite a while now
(ever since System 7, IIRC).
Apparently, the availability of Mono for Gentoo-PPC is the same as for
Gentoo-x86 (that is, ~). As for J2EE, I don't know about Gentoo, but it
works perfectly under OS X, and so does Eclipse (best IDE ever, by the
way). And I suppose Apple will be upgrading its version of the JRE from
1.4.2 to 1.5.x when Tiger is released (which should be in a couple of
months).

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 31
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:33:26 +0000
Whoops, sorry for the double posting.

-- Wild_Cat
Message no. 32
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:45:26 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@yahoo.fr>
Date: Friday, December 10, 2004 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: Quick Matrix Questions

>
> On Dec 10, 2004, at 19:45, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
>
> >> Would you even walk around outdoors with a US$5000 computer?
I
> know
> >> that
> >> if I'd spent that kind of money the thing would not leave my
> house...>
> > I'm going to have to disagree here and side with Adam. My
> laptop only
> > cost
> > $1000, but if it was a $5000 machine, I'd still
carry it around.
> (I
> > would
> > be more cautious though.) That's near my limit though, I
> wouldn't buy
> > a
> > $15000 laptop because I wouldn't want to carry it around.
>
> True. And in Shadowrun, the shittiest cyberdeck in the world, the
> Allegiance Sigma, the one with which you get in trouble when
> cracking
> Blue hosts, costs a whopping 20000¥. Without any software.
(damn,
> where
> has Linux gone when we need it!)

A brief, brief thought for those boggling at prices...Something I
think even FASA/FanPro has forgotten, or never knew.

The Yen has nothing like cents or similar (that are broadly used, anyhow).
100¥ is the same (not in exchange rate terms, but within the currency itself) as
$1. Perfect parity would be 100¥=$1.

So...Divide by 100 to get saner prices?
Message no. 33
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:46:14 +0000
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:57:27PM -0600, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2004 10:34 am, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
>
> wrote:
> > > The other was the fact that a Decker ain't nothing without his deck
> > > and utilities, minimizing skill importance. I had a skilled decker
> > > loose his deck, it seemened like his drawers were dropped and he
> > > was left swinging in the wind. - Sorry for the Off-Topic rant
>
> I find that realistic. As a programmer, I can do *very* little without a
> computer and software, despite having the same about of skill I had before
> they were gone.
>

I think the point was more that if a decker does blow 1.5 million on a deck and software
and it's lost then replacing it is going to be extremely difficult. It's true that a
programmer can't do much without a computer and software, but a good programmer can do the
job with virtually any modern computer. If your laptop is lost you might curse a bit but
it's not actually that hard to replace. You might still might need to get some software
for it, but even that isn't very difficult, especially considering the amount of free
stuff out there.

In Shadowrun you have these extremely expensive computers that basically determine almost
everything with regards to how well a decker can deck. You can try to lower the cost of
the decks, but then you ruin the game balance as another poster noted. What really needs
to be done is both a drastic reduction in the cost of the decks and software combined with
a reworking of the decking system so that it's based more on attributes and skills and
less on your computer.

Of course, Shadowrun only has one 'computer' skill that covers everything, so for that to
work you'd really need to break that up into multiple skills or else everyone could be a
hotshot decker with some minor effort.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 34
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:49:40 +0000
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 03:45:26PM -0500, John C. Penta wrote:
>
> A brief, brief thought for those boggling at prices...Something I think even
FASA/FanPro has forgotten, or never knew.
>
> The Yen has nothing like cents or similar (that are broadly used, anyhow). 100¥
is the same (not in exchange rate terms, but within the currency itself) as $1. Perfect
parity would be 100¥=$1.
>
> So...Divide by 100 to get saner prices?
>

Shadowrun is based on nuyen, though, a fictional currency which doesn't really have any
relation to modern day yen. If you look at the actual prices given, FASA/FanPro tends to
follow approximately (very approximately) 1 nuyen = 1 modern day dollar for a lot of
things. But then there are things like computer system costs that are totally out of line
with that.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 35
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:56:41 +0000
On Dec 10, 2004, at 20:45, John C. Penta wrote:

>> True. And in Shadowrun, the shittiest cyberdeck in the world, the
>> Allegiance Sigma, the one with which you get in trouble when
>> cracking
>> Blue hosts, costs a whopping 20000¥. Without any software. (damn,
>> where
>> has Linux gone when we need it!)
>
> A brief, brief thought for those boggling at prices...Something I
> think even FASA/FanPro has forgotten, or never knew.
>
> The Yen has nothing like cents or similar (that are broadly used,
> anyhow). 100¥ is the same (not in exchange rate terms, but within the
> currency itself) as $1. Perfect parity would be 100¥=$1.

Current yen, perhaps. But it's a well-established fact that one
Shadowrun nuyen is equivalent to one modern-day US Dollar (funny how
monetary units in most games always seem to map 1-to-1 with modern-day
USD, isn't it?). Either this, or an Ares Predator is worth $4.50, and
Shadowrunners risk their lives daily for the price of a Playstation.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 36
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:01:58 -0800 (PST)
> What I find unrealistic is the huge cost of even a good, legal,
> cyberterminal. Assuming 1nY ~= 1$US, a low end system is going to
> be $500
> (or less) and a drool-worthy system is only going to cost $5000.
> No one
> is going to carry around a system that is worth 1.5million! Not
> because
> you can't carry it around, but because 1.5million requires a
> security
> guard or two to move around unless you *want* to be robbed.

Well, I leave cyberterm costs alone for char gen purposes. This is
because the resource cost of equipment at char gen does NOT
necessarily represent someone going out and buying the item.
Especially in the case of something blatantly illegal like a slick
cyberdeck, the resource cost represents the time and effort as well
as the cash cost of acquiring the item. Now, after the game starts,
the costs make no sense. Hence, I usually drop the cost of legal
computer equipment to something more reasonable. Given that SR has
long claimed that 1¥ is roughly equal to 4 or 5$ (very slick way to
sweep inflation under the carpet), a decent legal computer will be
about the same cost in nuyen as it is today in dollars, give or take.

> Then, of course, there's the whole software costs issue. I have
> multiple
> programming suites, a good number of applications, a lots of
> "hacker"
> tools available to me for free. None of the software on this
> computer (or
> my laptop) has cost me a dime. And updating all the software to
> the
> latest and greatest versions is 2 console commands!

Again, depends on when the software is aqcuired. An attack utility
is NOT an mpeg ripper, but something slightly less likely to be
floating around for every script bunny to pull off sourceforge and
run. So, at char gen, the resource cost for utilities (especially
the good illegal ones) makes sense. After play commences... not so
much. So, fudge a bit. Maybe the PC decker spends a lot of time and
money making friends who can get him access to the good warez hosts
hiding around the matrix. Once that's done, presto, freebie utils
from time to time. Of course, words gets out if they don't
reciprocate with a bit of open-source generosity occasionally. Which
eats time. Lots of it. So the "free" utils end up costing
eventually.

> > I am experimenting with a house rule that allows a decker to code
> > one-shot utilities on the fly.
>
> Does this rule (when applied to combat) replace the Improvized
> Combat
> rules on p122 of Matrix?

Yes.

> I'm okay with one-shot utilities (of all types) being coded and
> used on the fly, but I don't want it to get out of hand.

They are an undesireable, last-ditch option. None of my players like
using them, if they can possibly avoid it. Still, it leaves me free
to surprise the PC with something nasty in what should be a milk-run,
without worrying that they are automatically toast without their
personal deck. I am still very fond of the old SR1 rules for decking
"naked". There is a very cool flavor to that aspect of decking, an
extra tension. Doable but dangerous. Under SR3, decking naked if
you aren't otaku is not feasible (or even possible, under the core
rules). I dislike that.

> Also, even one-shot utilities are multiple Mp, which is a lot of
> code to hack out.

Well... to me, most of those Mp are the cool simsense objects of the
Matrix environment. The decker, as opposed to the average Matrix
user, probably knows how to skip such code-heavy objects when
necessary. In effect, she knows how to do things like use built in
hot-keys, open command shells, and the like. Her script is small
because it does not render anything in the simsense world. In fact,
the only way she knows for certain it works is to observe results.
Her script is "odorless", "invisible", "inaudible", etc...
Without
viewing logs, other users (even other deckers) have no idea what
happend. Think of how many lines of code a desktop shortcut
represents. Most of it is code to draw the shortcut, build in points
for the various tabs under properties, etc. All it does it execute a
command drive:\directory\executable. As a decker trying to code on
the fly, I would start a command shell, type the path, and execute
it. I would not sit down and code the entire shortcut so I could
click on it.

======Korishinzo
--granted, the analogy of present-day programming is a bit weak when
applied to SR, but hey... it's what I know :)



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Message no. 37
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:50:02 -0600
On Friday 10 December 2004 02:31 pm, Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2004, at 19:45, Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> >> Would you even walk around outdoors with a US$5000 computer? I know
> >> that
> >> if I'd spent that kind of money the thing would not leave my house...
> >
> > I'm going to have to disagree here and side with Adam. My laptop only
> > cost
> > $1000, but if it was a $5000 machine, I'd still carry it around. (I
> > would
> > be more cautious though.) That's near my limit though, I wouldn't buy
> > a
> > $15000 laptop because I wouldn't want to carry it around.
>
> True. And in Shadowrun, the shittiest cyberdeck in the world, the
> Allegiance Sigma, the one with which you get in trouble when cracking
> Blue hosts, costs a whopping 20000¥. Without any software. (damn, where
> has Linux gone when we need it!)

There are cheaper cyber terminals like CMT Portal (MPCP 1), but oddly
enough the editors/writers didn't think that really low-end systems needed
to follow the rules (they have more than MPCP*3 attributes).

It would be nice if there was a way to trade time for cost -- it generally
takes longer to find/install all your apps for linux but it's a lot
cheaper than doing the same thing with a windows system.

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 38
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:55:42 -0600
On Friday 10 December 2004 03:01 pm, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
wrote:
> > Also, even one-shot utilities are multiple Mp, which is a lot of
> > code to hack out.
>
> Well... to me, most of those Mp are the cool simsense objects of the
> Matrix environment.

If they aren't required, why not just strip them out of standard programs
to make them smaller and, thus be able to do more with the same amount of
active memory?

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 39
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:34:33 -0200
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:46:14 +0000, David Kettler
<davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:

> Of course, Shadowrun only has one 'computer' skill that covers everything, so for
that to work you'd really need to break that up into multiple skills or else everyone
could be a hotshot decker with some minor effort.

I don't see that as such a major problem. It's even helpful if you
want to hammer across the point that "computers are everywhere" in the
Sixth World. Nearly everyone would know at least a bit about them.

Couple that with a really streamlined system, based mostly on skill
rolls and the simple "generic" computers from the basic book, and
you've got a really pervasive Matrix that doesn't get in the way of
the group.

Someone who wanted to play a character who lives for hacking would
have to learn a bunch of other technical and security-related skills,
which complement his Computer. They'd still have plenty to do, but
wouldn't hog all the group's time at once.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 40
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:08:38 -0800 (PST)
> > Well... to me, most of those Mp are the cool simsense objects of
> > the Matrix environment.

> If they aren't required, why not just strip them out of standard
> programs to make them smaller and, thus be able to do more with
> the same amount of active memory?

Why does anyone use windows? More specifically, why does anyone who
knows how to use linux use windows? Games, make-your-life-easier
applications, the average workplace... they are built for windows, so
people who know better still end up using it. People use memory
intensive simsense icons for everything because it is easy. It's
there. It is portable. The one-shot, desperation, command line
script our decker used last week to save her hoop when the innocent
green host she was on bounce to orange is gone. It would not run
anywhere else even if she still had it. With a few library pointers
or daemon calls, she wrangled a last ditch buy-some-time life saver.
Ideally, she'd have a nice utility in memory. Sure, it is a memory
hog. Sure, a lot of the stuff in the code is not strictly necessary.
But, that utility can be used repeatedly, runs on just about every
host, and can be used without automatically raising the security
tally and burning extra pool dice on a second roll. The code to make
a utility universally portable to any OS/server/network alone could
account more than half a utility's size.

If even half the computer users in the world favored efficiency over
convenience, Bard's Tale would still be cutting edge computer rpg,
and BBS's would be as massively multiplayer as online gaming needed
to get. :) (warning: possible dramatic lisence in previous)

Of course, I coud be way off base. None of my players have had the
presence of mind to question my rue in this fashion yet.

======Korishinzo
--we'll keep playtesting



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 41
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:25:22 -0600
On Saturday 11 December 2004 12:08 am, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
wrote:
> > > Well... to me, most of those Mp are the cool simsense objects of
> > > the Matrix environment.
> >
> > If they aren't required, why not just strip them out of standard
> > programs to make them smaller and, thus be able to do more with
> > the same amount of active memory?
>
> Why does anyone use windows? More specifically, why does anyone who
> knows how to use linux use windows?

So, deckers in your campaign CAN choose to make their programs like 90%
smaller, just 'cause they want to? Sure, users want pretty. Hackers want
utility. Given the option to take out the pretty to be able to run more
programs, your deckers will choose the programs every time.

See, when you are talking about deckers writing their own programs you are
really talking about a normal user. You probably aren't talking about a
windows user at all. (A windowing system, yes, but not windows.)

> The code to make
> a utility universally portable to any OS/server/network alone could
> account more than half a utility's size.

Of course, this contradicts the previous statement. Simsense can't be
"most" of the Mp if portability is "more than half". [Becuase of some

over-zealous snippage (probably mine), I can't actually tell if you are
contrdicting yourself or someone else.]

If this is what you think saves on the program size, then I might buy it.
I really don't think the portability code is that large, but then again a
decker is going to be able to just "think" the code out, they may be able
to produce quite a bit of Mp. (I'm assuming hot ASSIST here; I don't
remember if it was in your rules, but the Improvised Combat rules from
matrix required a hot ASSIST.)

On a slightly different, but related topic, what might the techies guess
that the one-shot option does to utilties? It doesn't make them less
portable (based on the rules) or remove the simsense (based on flavor) or
make them specialized (based on the rules) or less effective (based on the
rules). What exactly is one-shot doing to reduce the size of the program
by adding the "feature" of deleting itself when it is run? Is one-shot
some type of self-modifying super-code that actually winds down to
virtually nothing as it finishes? Does one-shot mean the program is
actually in some sort of scripting language that gets compiled and run on
the fly, so that the image doesn't stay in active memory?

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 42
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:16:12 -0600
On Friday 10 December 2004 03:01 pm, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
wrote:
> > What I find unrealistic is the huge cost of even a good, legal,
> > cyberterminal. Assuming 1nY ~= 1$US, a low end system is going to
> > be $500
> > (or less) and a drool-worthy system is only going to cost $5000.
> > No one
> > is going to carry around a system that is worth 1.5million! Not
> > because
> > you can't carry it around, but because 1.5million requires a
> > security
> > guard or two to move around unless you *want* to be robbed.
>
> Well, I leave cyberterm costs alone for char gen purposes. This is
> because the resource cost of equipment at char gen does NOT
> necessarily represent someone going out and buying the item.

I agree, heck that's one of the reasons all resources remaining after
chargen are divided by 10.

> Especially in the case of something blatantly illegal like a slick
> cyberdeck, the resource cost represents the time and effort as well
> as the cash cost of acquiring the item. Now, after the game starts,
> the costs make no sense.

Hmm, the same (blatantly illegal) can be said of guns and ammo, certain
spells, and various pieces cyberware. Yet, there are perfectly legal ways
of getting these items. It's the same with most parts of a cyberdeck and
most programms. The only restricted items are Evasion and Combat
Utilities, which are available to security deckers. There's /no/ legal
use for Masking, but it's the digital equivalent of a fake ID.

Should all items be cheaper after chargen?

> > Then, of course, there's the whole software costs issue. I have
> > multiple
> > programming suites, a good number of applications, a lots of
> > "hacker"
> > tools available to me for free. None of the software on this
> > computer (or
> > my laptop) has cost me a dime. And updating all the software to
> > the
> > latest and greatest versions is 2 console commands!
>
> Again, depends on when the software is aqcuired. An attack utility
> is NOT an mpeg ripper, but something slightly less likely to be
> floating around for every script bunny to pull off sourceforge and
> run.

Well, there are plenty of less repudable (sp?) sites that give
proof-of-concept exploits, some that can be deployed as is.

Also, most utilities have very legal uses. I don't see why these would not
appear on an SR-era sourceforge. [Although, it does take some computer
skill to install from source, or even from a not-so-pretty binary zip.]

No, not everyone is going to know where to download a free utility of X
type, but I don't see why they wouldn't (still) be out there.

I suppose you could integrate open-source into your game by just taking the
easy route and saying that they are available, but have low rating. I
don't think this is really fair to open-source utilities though, since,
for example, the gnu utilities are far better than the utilities they've
effectively replaced.

> > > I am experimenting with a house rule that allows a decker to code
> > > one-shot utilities on the fly.
> >
> > Does this rule (when applied to combat) replace the Improvized
> > Combat
> > rules on p122 of Matrix?
>
> Yes.

It looks like it really makes improvised cybercombat HARDER.

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 43
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:17:44 +0100
According to Da Twink Daddy, on Friday 10 December 2004 20:45 the word on
the street was...

> I'm going to have to disagree here and side with Adam. My laptop only
> cost $1000, but if it was a $5000 machine, I'd still carry it around.
> (I would be more cautious though.) That's near my limit though, I
> wouldn't buy a $15000 laptop because I wouldn't want to carry it around.

Regardless of the exact computer price you would or would not take with you
IRL, my point is the same as the one you originally made: cyberdecks are
so ridiculously expensive that nobody in their right minds would take them
outdoors without a security cordon around them.

> Now, when it comes to desktops and special events (gaming conventions)
> bringing a system that has $10000 invested in it doesn't seem to extreme
> with some upper limit around $25000.

Last time I bought a computer, in early 2003, I spent about 650 euros :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: 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. 44
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:23:47 +0100
According to Max Noel, on Friday 10 December 2004 21:56 the word on the
street was...

> Current yen, perhaps. But it's a well-established fact that one
> Shadowrun nuyen is equivalent to one modern-day US Dollar (funny how
> monetary units in most games always seem to map 1-to-1 with modern-day
> USD, isn't it?).

I wonder why that is...

> Either this, or an Ares Predator is worth $4.50

I remember a TV report last year saying you could buy an AK assault rifle
in Bagdad for US$10, or US$5 if you didn't mind a Chinese-made one :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: 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. 45
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:28:22 +0100
According to Ice Heart, on Friday 10 December 2004 22:01 the word on the
street was...

> Given that SR has
> long claimed that 1¥ is roughly equal to 4 or 5$ (very slick way to
> sweep inflation under the carpet)

You may be confused with BattleTech, where 1 ComStar bill is roughly US$10,
IIRC. Several SR books state 1 nuyen = US$1 (which, in my game, means 1
nuyen = 1 euro, BTW).

> Again, depends on when the software is aqcuired. An attack utility
> is NOT an mpeg ripper, but something slightly less likely to be
> floating around for every script bunny to pull off sourceforge and
> run. So, at char gen, the resource cost for utilities (especially
> the good illegal ones) makes sense. After play commences... not so
> much. So, fudge a bit.

Fudge them a _bit_, say lower by 10% to 25%, or change them to realistic,
modern-day, RL values? Because the latter will still get you in the same
position as I mentioned before, namely that every decker in the world has
very high-rated software. If you only need to spend 500 to 1000 nuyen on
rating 8 or 10 programs, what's stopping you? You have a shadowrunner's
income, after all...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: 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. 46
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:30:59 +0100
According to Da Twink Daddy, on Friday 10 December 2004 22:50 the word on
the street was...

> It would be nice if there was a way to trade time for cost -- it
> generally takes longer to find/install all your apps for linux but it's
> a lot cheaper than doing the same thing with a windows system.

I just buy the latest SuSE update every couple of years... Saves me
tracking down all the software myself, and then having to find all the new
versions of libs and other stuff that in 99% of cases prevents software
from installing properly on my machine :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: 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. 47
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:24:09 -0800 (PST)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> According to Ice Heart, on Friday 10 December 2004 22:01 the word
> on the
> street was...
>
> > Given that SR has
> > long claimed that 1¥ is roughly equal to 4 or 5$ (very slick way
> to
> > sweep inflation under the carpet)
>
> You may be confused with BattleTech, where 1 ComStar bill is
> roughly US$10,
> IIRC. Several SR books state 1 nuyen = US$1 (which, in my game,
> means 1
> nuyen = 1 euro, BTW).

Actually I was drawing from the SR2 price conversion charts. 1¥ roughly 4 UCAS $ or 5
CAS $.

> > Again, depends on when the software is aqcuired. An attack
> utility
> > is NOT an mpeg ripper, but something slightly less likely to be
> > floating around for every script bunny to pull off sourceforge
> and
> > run. So, at char gen, the resource cost for utilities
> (especially
> > the good illegal ones) makes sense. After play commences... not
> so
> > much. So, fudge a bit.
>
> Fudge them a _bit_, say lower by 10% to 25%, or change them to
> realistic,
> modern-day, RL values? Because the latter will still get you in the
> same
> position as I mentioned before, namely that every decker in the
> world has
> very high-rated software. If you only need to spend 500 to 1000
> nuyen on
> rating 8 or 10 programs, what's stopping you? You have a
> shadowrunner's
> income, after all...

Or leave them as is and hope your players don't ask. Some bridges
are best crossed only when arrived at. :)

======Korishinzo
--abstraction is rarely a friend to realism



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 48
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:29:45 -0800 (PST)
> > > Does this rule (when applied to combat) replace the Improvized
> > > Combat
> > > rules on p122 of Matrix?

> > Yes.

> It looks like it really makes improvised cybercombat HARDER.

It does. And in return the PC deckers gain the ability to improvise
any utility in a pinch. They haven't complained.

======Korishinzo
--at least, not out loud :>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 49
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:51:12 -0800 (PST)
> So, deckers in your campaign CAN choose to make their programs like
> 90%
> smaller, just 'cause they want to? Sure, users want pretty.
> Hackers want
> utility. Given the option to take out the pretty to be able to run
> more
> programs, your deckers will choose the programs every time.

Actually, my deckers just choose to have machines with as much memory
as they can cram in. Somewhat like computer gamers of the present
day. Bigger hard drives (storage mem) and more RAM (active mem), not
more efficient programs, is the order of the day. In essence, what
it means is that SR deckers are less like modern hackers and more
like PC gamers who are seeking the ultimate thrill ride/challenge.

> See, when you are talking about deckers writing their own programs
> you are
> really talking about a normal user. You probably aren't talking
> about a
> windows user at all. (A windowing system, yes, but not windows.)

Yes. I think the vast majority of deckers in SR don't know how to
code utilities from scratch. They will use 3D, simsense object
coding languages. Somewhat like a business major using VB to
"program". Drag an object onto the fram and drop it. Select from a
list of options for that item. Select from a list of actinos for
that option. Select from a list of destinations for that action to
take you. In the end, almost no code is written. And the resulting
programs are ridiculously inefficient in terms of size. What my rule
is doing is differentiating between programming and scripting.
Inherent to this approach is the understanding that many deckers
would not be able to program without massive smart compilers that can
practically turn pseudo-code into a working program for you. Also, I
usaully encourage PC deckers to consider knowledge skills related to
coding if they want to program, and scripting if they want to write
utils on the fly.

> Of course, this contradicts the previous statement. Simsense can't
> be "most" of the Mp if portability is "more than half". [Becuase
>
of some over-zealous snippage (probably mine), I can't actually > >
tell if you are contrdicting yourself or someone else.]

Contradicting myself as it happens, primarily through
"overzealousness" in my choice of wording to make a point. :)
Let's put it this way. I think the average SR utility is about
40-45% simsense object code, 40-45% portability code, and only 10-20%
execution code. Give or take. Of that execustion code, a large
portion of it is declaring variables and using them to create
decision making capability for the program. Loops and subroutines so
an attack utility can attack whatever you aim it at, for example.
Your command line, OTOH, has no such ability. It will be something
like a call to a kill daemon, with an argument of the thing about to
smack you. And if the thing does not go poof, you wince and try a
kill -9. All the while burning dice and raising the sec tally. :)


======Korishinzo
--this is all very vague because I am NOT a programmer, I am a
sysadmin



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 50
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:54:43 +0000
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:51:12AM -0800, Ice Heart wrote:
> > So, deckers in your campaign CAN choose to make their programs like
> > 90%
> > smaller, just 'cause they want to? Sure, users want pretty.
> > Hackers want
> > utility. Given the option to take out the pretty to be able to run
> > more
> > programs, your deckers will choose the programs every time.
>
> Actually, my deckers just choose to have machines with as much memory
> as they can cram in. Somewhat like computer gamers of the present
> day. Bigger hard drives (storage mem) and more RAM (active mem), not
> more efficient programs, is the order of the day. In essence, what
> it means is that SR deckers are less like modern hackers and more
> like PC gamers who are seeking the ultimate thrill ride/challenge.
>

Gack! Ugh. I don't even know what to say about that...so you're saying that all deckers
are testosterone-driven, l33t speaking, whiny 13 year olds with with rich parents and way
too much time on their hands?

Look, I don't know about you but to this day I do the vast majority of my work with simple
command-line utilities because I prefer things that way. I find the implication that
everyone would choose massively inefficient and needlessly complicated utilities
moderately insulting. Remeber that deckers are *not* supposed to be average computer
users.

> > See, when you are talking about deckers writing their own programs
> > you are
> > really talking about a normal user. You probably aren't talking
> > about a
> > windows user at all. (A windowing system, yes, but not windows.)
>
> Yes. I think the vast majority of deckers in SR don't know how to
> code utilities from scratch. They will use 3D, simsense object
> coding languages. Somewhat like a business major using VB to
> "program". Drag an object onto the fram and drop it. Select from a
> list of options for that item. Select from a list of actinos for
> that option. Select from a list of destinations for that action to
> take you. In the end, almost no code is written. And the resulting
> programs are ridiculously inefficient in terms of size. What my rule
> is doing is differentiating between programming and scripting.
> Inherent to this approach is the understanding that many deckers
> would not be able to program without massive smart compilers that can
> practically turn pseudo-code into a working program for you. Also, I
> usaully encourage PC deckers to consider knowledge skills related to
> coding if they want to program, and scripting if they want to write
> utils on the fly.
>

Oh...so you're saying that all deckers are script kiddies? Well, that does match your
earlier statement pretty well, but it doesn't match my understanding of the Shadowrun
universe. If that's really all there is too it then why would anyone pay ten grand or
more to hire a fucking script kiddie?!

SR Deckers are supposed to be better at that, at least if they want to justify the price
they're hired for.

> > Of course, this contradicts the previous statement. Simsense can't
> > be "most" of the Mp if portability is "more than half".
[Becuase >
> of some over-zealous snippage (probably mine), I can't actually > >
> tell if you are contrdicting yourself or someone else.]
>
> Contradicting myself as it happens, primarily through
> "overzealousness" in my choice of wording to make a point. :)
> Let's put it this way. I think the average SR utility is about
> 40-45% simsense object code, 40-45% portability code, and only 10-20%
> execution code. Give or take. Of that execustion code, a large
> portion of it is declaring variables and using them to create
> decision making capability for the program. Loops and subroutines so
> an attack utility can attack whatever you aim it at, for example.
> Your command line, OTOH, has no such ability. It will be something
> like a call to a kill daemon, with an argument of the thing about to
> smack you. And if the thing does not go poof, you wince and try a
> kill -9. All the while burning dice and raising the sec tally. :)
>
>

40% portability code?! Christ almighty...of course, that does sort of fit with the 40%
simsense crap. It's always those fancy graphical apps that are difficult to port. Simple
command-line stuff can usually be ported with minimal effort. As for your perception of
what command-line utilities can do...I'm just confused. Why in the bloody blue blazes are
simsense objects necessary to have loops and logic?!

Sorry about the rather negative tone of this rant, but I just can't buy your justification
for something that was obviously done in the name of game balance and has nothing to do
with actual computer systems.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 51
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:20:23 -0800 (PST)
> Gack! Ugh. I don't even know what to say about that...so you're
> saying that all deckers are testosterone-driven, l33t speaking,
> whiny 13 year olds with with rich parents and way too much time on
> their hands?
>
> Look, I don't know about you but to this day I do the vast majority
> of my work with simple command-line utilities because I prefer
> things that way. I find the implication that everyone would choose
> massively inefficient and needlessly complicated utilities
> moderately insulting. Remeber that deckers are *not* supposed to
> be average computer users.

True. All true. Today. After a killer computer virus destroys the
known world... *shrug* I did not say that the system approximated
modern hacking well. It does, however, allow us to use the existing
system and maintain a degree of versimilitude. That is, internal
consistancy.

> Oh...so you're saying that all deckers are script kiddies? Well,
> that does match your earlier statement pretty well, but it doesn't
> match my understanding of the Shadowrun universe. If that's really
> all there is too it then why would anyone pay ten grand or more to
> hire a fucking script kiddie?! SR Deckers are supposed to be >
better at that, at least if they want to justify the price they're >
hired for.

Because they are the only option? And because they get the job done?
Listen, the entire decking system is in many ways a terribly miopic
take on hacking. It is abstracted and diluted to the highest degree
of anything the SR game system presents. However, without rewriting
the entire system, it works for us with this house rule. It means
that most deckers don't leave the safety of their jackpoint without
utilities locked and loaded, but that if the decker has to jack in
through a maglock and try and fry the sentry gun next door, he can do
it without his deck and still have a slim chance.

> 40% portability code?! Christ almighty...of course, that does sort
> of fit with the 40% simsense crap. It's always those fancy
> graphical apps that are difficult to port. Simple command-line
> stuff can usually be ported with minimal effort. As for your
> perception of what command-line utilities can do...I'm just
> confused. Why in the bloody blue blazes are simsense objects
> necessary to have loops and logic?!

*sigh* I have an idea. You write a better Matrix system and I'll
use it. Either the Matrix is a fancy graphical extrapolation of
todays internet, or it isn't. Either decking is the future
equivalent to hacking, or it is something else entirely. Doesn't
really matter in the end. It is what we have, and we can either
fabricate explanations to satisfy our questions, or we can simply not
ask questions.

> Sorry about the rather negative tone of this rant, but I just can't
> buy your justification for something that was obviously done in the
> name of game balance and has nothing to do with actual computer
> systems.

That is exactly the issue. Game balance. Now, do you fix things by
altering the mechanics as needed to fit the story, or do you alter
the story to encompass the mechanics? Since shadowrun is NOT the
real world, NOT the current world, we can take certain liberties.
Like saying, this is all anyone knows, post-Crash, of programming.
Highly unwieldy (in terms of memory use) programs in a massively
(perhaps overly) rendered environment. Icons to protect the brain
from the insanity and addictiveness of a completely false world.
Simsense icons to translate lines of code into a 3D consensual
hallucination. And the really good deckers, the best of the best
among hackers and sysadmins, well, they know how to pull some
near-magical tricks at the command line. They can hot-key around
windows without their mouse. It isn't always the best approach. It
is a bit slower than just reaching out with your brain and
manipulating the virtual in a nicely intuitive fashion. But, it can
save your hoop if you get caught with your passcode down around your
ankles and the drek hits the rotary oscillator.

======Korishinzo
--always open to a functional replacement for a broken mechanic... a
bit less open to criticism devoid of a solution...



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 52
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:26:00 +0100
According to Ice Heart, on Saturday 11 December 2004 20:24 the word on the
street was...

> Actually I was drawing from the SR2 price conversion charts. 1¥ =
> roughly 4 UCAS $ or 5 CAS $.

Ah, OK. I thought you were talking about RL US dollars, not the ones in the
game. (In any case it's 1 nuyen = $5 UCAS = $4.75 CAS :)

> Or leave them as is and hope your players don't ask. Some bridges
> are best crossed only when arrived at. :)

Unless you want ty try and get PC deckers into your group, as I did a few
years ago when I experimented with lowered deck prices.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: 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. 53
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Quick Matrix Questions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:29:09 +0100
According to David Kettler, on Saturday 11 December 2004 23:54 the word on
the street was...

> Sorry about the rather negative tone of this rant, but I just can't buy
> your justification for something that was obviously done in the name of
> game balance and has nothing to do with actual computer systems.

And that's why you should not let people who know something about RL
computers, play deckers in SR :) Almost all the GM will end up doing is
playing Trekkie to explain why something that's obviously ridiculous does
work the way it's said to...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: 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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Quick Matrix Questions, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!