Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Rants about Transhuman

58 posts / 0 new

Last post

Wed, 2013-08-07 10:50

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Rants about Transhuman

So I am going to rant about transhuman here, by going through it page by page and picking out what I don't like. Why am I doing this? Is it because I am a total jerk who hates Eclipse Phase? No it is because I like Eclipse Phase, I want Eclipse Phase to be the best game it can be, and that means pointing out mistakes. And yes I realize that all of this is for nothing and I will just be ignored. But at least I will know that I tried to make it better. So starting with chapter 5, Playing Characters, because I know I am going to hate the infomorph/AGI section. First of all I like the art for this chapter :) [b]Post-scarcity characters:[/b] this section seems fine. No complaints so far :) [b]Optimizing Characters:[/b] So I am reading along, everything seems to be okay... and then I get to page 109, the beam weapons part, which states that beam weapons lack stopping power against synthmorphs. WTF? SA beam weapons like the laser pulser and particle beam bolter are just as deadly against synthmorphs (and pods and biomorphs :) ) as other weapons. Did the author not understand how to use beam weapons? Example:

Spoiler: Highlight to view

Lets do a comparison between four weapons: a light pistol firing on full auto(+3d10 DV), a concentrated laser pulser (2x DV), a concentrated particle beam bolter (x2 DV), and an automatic rifle firing on full auto (+3d10 DV). Suppose they are firing on at a target with 40 DUR and a 32 was rolled to hit: * The light pistol does (5d10 + 5) DV for a 14% chance to kill the target. * The laser pulser does (2d10 + 5) x 2 DV for a 21% chance to kill the target. * The particle beam bolter does (2d10 + 9) x 2 DV for a 55% chance to kill the target. * The automatic rifle does (5d10 + 11) DV for a 44% chance to kill the target. But what, you say, if they don't have moxie to spend? Lets suppose the target has 8/8 armor. * The light pistol does (5d10 + 5) - 8 DV for a 0.8% chance to kill the target. * The laser pulser does (2d10 + 5) x 2 - 8 DV for a 3% chance to kill the target. * The particle beam bolter does (2d10 + 9) x 2 - 6 DV for a 28% chance to kill the target. * The automatic rifle does (5d10 + 11) - 2 DV for a 32% chance to kill the target.

Moving on, I get to combat tactics section, start reading it and noticed something was... 'off' with the advice. After a second, I realized that whoever wrote this section didn't realize that you get two burst fire attacks per complex action (I went and looked it up to make sure I wasn't misremembering, it's on page 198), which makes most of the advice, while not 'bad', sub-optimal at best. For example people with high skill calling shots to bypass armor will do far more damage with controlled bursts than autofire (as it should be). For people with moderate skill, firing two bursts (+1d10 DV) is better than firing a single full auto shot at +30 to hit. I won't bore you with the statistics for this one though. They did remember the +5 DV bonus for MoS 30+, which is a major plus. However, they did not explain that you also get a +10 DV bonus from a MoS of 60+ (p. 194 if your interested) which is a minus :(. On to the picking armor section. There is an obvious error here as Armor does NOT max out at 32 (unless they changed it somewhere earlier in the book, in that case they should have added a page reference to the new rule here). It maxes out at DUR (p. 194). The rest of the combat section is fine, though I would have liked is a section explanation when to upgrade to a critical success in combat (an extremely important consideration that was completely ignored, unless it is elsewhere in the book?). [b]Transhuman Tradecraft[/b] is fine. [b]The Sentinel Playbook[/b] is also fine! I will do the rest of this chapter later (and I didn't even get around to rant about the Infomorph/AGI rules :( ) Playing characters (7/75 = 9.33% done)

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-07 10:58

nick012000 nick012000's picture

You're forgetting the variant

You're forgetting the variant ammo types for kinetic weapons. Giving them Armor Piercing makes them vastly superior to the beam weapons, since it moves things back to the first table, while the beam weapons deal with the second table.

—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Wed, 2013-08-07 12:05

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Response to nick012000

nick012000 wrote:
You're forgetting the variant ammo types for kinetic weapons. Giving them Armor Piercing makes them vastly superior to the beam weapons, since it moves things back to the first table, while the beam weapons deal with the second table.

I didn't include a lot of things, as I wasn't trying to prove that beam weapons were superior to kinetic weapons (that would require factoring in firing modes), only that they weren't useless against synthmorphs as the book suggested. I provided the kinetic weapons to provided context for the numbers I provided for the beam weapons.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-07 12:15

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

More ranting...

So on to [b]combat hacking[/b]: The first part of this section is pretty decent. Then I got to the Shell Jamming and Combat Drones section: First of all, major error: there are no such things as HEAP grenades (p. 340 of Eclipse Phase). Also the whole seeker = shells things (because you can only jam shells) is game breakingly weird if you think about it for two seconds: [list] [*]If seekers are shells, then they are controlled by an AI. Then WTF is a the seeker weapon skill for since the AI will be controlling the seeker? [*] Are fired seekers limited to a skill of 40 (the AI's pilot skill limit) when fired? Why not? Do you have to jam a seeker to get a higher skill? What about laser guided seekers? Did they cram a full AI in their just for laser guidence? What skills does the seeker AI have? Is it a bot AI? Then it doesn't have the seeker skill? [*] Does controlling a seeker in flight require the Pilot: Aircraft Skill, a special Pilot: Seeker skill, or what? [*] If seekers are shells and they hit a target, do they do damage from ramming with a shell? [*] Does jamming override the smart ammo properties of a seeker? How does jamming a seeker interact with things like aiming and range penalities? How does the inititative work with jamming a seeker which is fired on someoneleses turn? [*] If a seeker misses is it still in the air? Can it attack again? Does it use the AI's skill. But the core book says use the rules for scatter? But why would an AI controlled... ARGHHH! [/list] In conclusion. This sounds cool, but if you think about it you realize how maddeningly non-functional it is in the context of the rules. Then in the "Tacnet, Counter-Intelligence, and Psyops" section, and I read this:

Quote:
Mental speed is the superior implant for attacking enemies with malware in combat. The time-dilation reduces the Task Action of brute-force hacking down to a matter of turns rather than minutes.

First of all: brute force hacking does NOT take minutes, it takes A minute. 1 minute. That is twenty combat turns. Second: Mental Speed does not reduce this to turns. In accordance to the rules presented earlier, mental speed reduces the time frame by 20% or from 20 turns to 16 turns. This might be an artifact from an earlier draft? Okay, reading on:

Quote:
Sending out friend requests in the middle of combat, but all sorts of equipment is wirelessly active and feeding info into a enemy mesh inserts: smartlinks, medichines, locater spimes, armor diagnostic programs, etc. Use sniffer to find a signal, hack it, then subvert the tacnet.

Please refer to the PAN, VPN, and Slaving Devices rules in Eclipse Phase. So no you are not going to hack into someones mesh inserts through their smartlink or any other PAN device. Unless they are an idiot I guess. But don't muses have InfoSec at 30? I guess they could ignore their muse. The rest of this section (habitat hacking) is pretty good though. Of course it fails to mention the fact that habitats will be defended :) [b]Travel Agents[/b] Okay, minor problem in the transporter skills in implants: Cyberbrains cannot be equipped with the Math Wiz trait as it is an ego trait. There is a [b]Math Boost[/b] implant, but that is not limited to cyberbrains. Also the authors completely forgot GUNNERY! Shame, authors, shame! In the 'Getting there on Foot' section. Wouldn't LIDAR be fooled by invisibility cloaks as well? Not really a criticism: but I wish the last part of the Travel section mentioned the disguise skill and improvised disguises. Lose pursuers by quickly disguising yourself as someone else (possible with an ego id switch). This has actually worked in real life situations (the one I remember is a guy grabbing a blanket and pretending to be an old woman to escape). Huh, this section is inspiring me, so Good Work! :D Playing Characters (10/75 = 13.3% done)

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-07 12:53

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Not cool, authors, not cool at all

[b]Bringing a Character to Life[/b] On page 118: I like the art in the abstract sense, but... does the pods arms look really weird to anyone else? Like they aren't quite proportional in a disturbing way? Maybe he has the uncanny vally trait. I fully support the entire Staying Lucid section. Preach it brother! [b]SUPER SERIOUS MODE = ON[/b] What I don't support is the roleplaying Insanity section, particularly the second paragraph, which is easily the worst thing I remember reading in an Eclipse Phase book. I am mentally ill. I have general anxiety disorder (GAD). People with a mental illness are not 'insane' or 'mad' and I find this section both prejudiced and discriminatory. Basically, as a person with a mental illness, I felt insulted by this section. Also, the whole unpredictability section of the second paragraph seems a) wrong for many illnesses and b) unnecessarily stigmatizing. [b]SUPER SERIOUS MODE = OFF[/b] Playing Characters (15/75 = 20% done)

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-07 14:40

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Rant levels dangerously low...

I think I am running out of rant. I liked both the [b]More You Know[/b] and the [b]Playing AGIs and Infomorphs[/b] sections. Some commentary: I am not thrilled about the description of eidlions but not too upset either. The "Physiology and Sensorium" section reads as absolutely horrific to me. This might be a good thing as reading it, I can see why someone wouldn't want to be an infomorph. It also reads that sleeving into an infomorph should have a significant learning curve. Checking the alienation/integration table, it is only a -20 though. Shrugs. Probably enough. I loved the AGI motivations sidebar and I liked the upload motivation sidebar. One small complaint with the "Complications" section, is that I wished they had listed which places have which views of infolife. A very minor complaint. Also, I noticed some typos: "Origin: Neural Modeling" has a typo: "A handful are also based upon non-human uplifts[1]" The "Infugee" section has a double period on the last line. Again: I liked these sections. I am going to pick this up tomorrow, when hopefully my rant level is back up to normal. Playing Characters (31/75 = 41% done)

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-07 14:40

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

Lalande21185 wrote:Also the

Lalande21185 wrote:
Also the whole seeker = shells things (because you can only jam shells) is game breakingly weird if you think about it for two seconds:

I'm not a huge fan of the core teleoperation rules but I don't see how this breaks the game. Also it's potentially useful to point out that at extended ranges in space and for vehicular weapons the fact that every thing that is intelligent, including seekers, has a device AI. It would seem odd if the 22nd century version of a stinger missile did not have full AI. Other than the teamwork test, (for groups that havn't house ruled teamwork), I don't see a problem with seeker AI. OOPS: never mind. just remembered that the +10 teamwork bonus to the test is already automatically included in the rules for smart weapons.

Lalande21185 wrote:
If seekers are shells, then they are controlled by an AI. Then WTF is a the seeker weapon skill for since the AI will be controlling the seeker?

Why? The AI doesn't have to control the shell it's just there when you need it.

Lalande21185 wrote:
What skills does the seeker AI have? Is it a bot AI? Then it doesn't have the seeker skill?

Wow you really take a hard line when it comes to RAW. I think that might be hampering your fun. Perhaps you could admit that there are many more possible AI in the EP setting than those few listed in the core book and that they will have skills appropriate to their function?

Lalande21185 wrote:
Does controlling a seeker in flight require the Pilot: Aircraft Skill, a special Pilot: Seeker skill, or what?

this would be best covered by the; Pilot:Exotic Vehicle [field] skill

Lalande21185 wrote:
Does jamming override the smart ammo properties of a seeker? How does jamming a seeker interact with things like aiming and range penalities? How does the inititative work with jamming a seeker which is fired on someoneleses turn?

Nope. Only one Character controls the vehicle at at time. If the seeker is being jammed the character holding the gun only gets to hold the gun. Range penalties apply to the jamming character. Initiative. First Action Pass: jamming character jumps into the seeker. Wielding character holds weapon. Second Action Pass: Jamming character delays action. Wielding character points weapon in general direction. Third Action Pass: jamming character fires seeker with a +10 bonus for the test from using a smart weapon.

Lalande21185 wrote:
If a seeker misses is it still in the air? Can it attack again? Does it use the AI's skill. But the core book says use the rules for scatter?

The scatter rules are for AoE. If there's enough open range then the seeker might find another target on the next Action Pass but I'd rule that any but the largest missiles, (vehicular), are out of fuel at the end of the Action Phase in which they are fired. Can anyone else remember a page reference for damage increase for larger size or vehicular weapons? I think it was x2 and x5 but I can't find it now.

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Wed, 2013-08-07 14:47

CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture

Lalande21185 wrote:

Lalande21185 wrote:
Again: I liked these sections. I am going to pick this up tomorrow, when hopefully my rant level is back up to normal. Playing Characters (31/75 = 41% done)

Frankly, Lalande, I am unimpressed. This rant has been far too positive so far. I give it a 3/10. I expect better from you. (Glad you seem to be liking the book).

—

Wed, 2013-08-07 15:03

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Seekers

I mean that it's game breakingly [b]weird[/b] as it doesn't really fit with the mechanics of the system at all and creates a large number of questions that don't have easy/quick/clear answers. I admit that I am heavily rule focused and I tend to overthink things horribly. But lets give a play type example (because those have worked so well in the past :( ) Character 1: I am going to fire a seeker at the guy. I roll a 46 out of 60. GM: Awesome you hit whats the damage on the seeker. Character 1: I don't know let me look up the vehicle collision rules. GM: Vehicle collision rules? Character 1: Seekers are shells right. You can jam them. So when they hit you it does damage for a collision. It says right here in transhuman. Okay, the collision damage is DV x (velocity / 10). Looking up the speed of a seeker: 2,000 m/per turn so it does it does 200 DV. GM: WTF!! And that is one (mostly thought exercise) example of it being game breakingly weird to treat projectiles as shells. I can think up many others. Now treating a seeker launcher as a shell, rather than a seeker, would actually work much better (and is how I would run it). Also, the vehicle weapon rules are in the spaceship section on page 347 (top left).

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-07 17:23

#10

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

UGH! It's too true that using

UGH! It's too true that using a linear scale for vehicle damage by velocity is doomed to failure. I'd ignore that and make up your own log tables if I were you. (since I'm me, I have to ignore that rule entirely because it doesn't even work for different size objects traveling at the same velocity. It's not too hard to estimate impact energy by guestimating mass x velocity on the spot.) But wouldn't you say that's more a problem with the rule for vehicle collision damage? Thanks for the page 347 reference. That one eludes me every friken time I need it. Note: Possibly as a product of your GAD your mechanical analysis of the game tends to be deeper than my own. I appreciate your posts even when I don't agree. So there is an upside... for me :)

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Wed, 2013-08-07 18:47

#11

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:Also the

Lalande21185 wrote:
Also the whole seeker = shells things (because you can only jam shells) is game breakingly weird if you think about it for two seconds: [list] [*]If seekers are shells, then they are controlled by an AI. Then WTF is a the seeker weapon skill for since the AI will be controlling the seeker? [*] Are fired seekers limited to a skill of 40 (the AI's pilot skill limit) when fired? Why not? Do you have to jam a seeker to get a higher skill? What about laser guided seekers? Did they cram a full AI in their just for laser guidence? What skills does the seeker AI have? Is it a bot AI? Then it doesn't have the seeker skill? [*] Does controlling a seeker in flight require the Pilot: Aircraft Skill, a special Pilot: Seeker skill, or what? [*] If seekers are shells and they hit a target, do they do damage from ramming with a shell? [*] Does jamming override the smart ammo properties of a seeker? How does jamming a seeker interact with things like aiming and range penalities? How does the inititative work with jamming a seeker which is fired on someoneleses turn? [*] If a seeker misses is it still in the air? Can it attack again? Does it use the AI's skill. But the core book says use the rules for scatter? But why would an AI controlled... ARGHHH! [/list] In conclusion. This sounds cool, but if you think about it you realize how maddeningly non-functional it is in the context of the rules.

You're overthinking this. Artificial Intelligence is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses any form of software that can act predictively. If you want to be very technical about it, many forms of software could also count as artificial intelligence, because pattern recognition and heuristics analysis often requires the use of some form of simple intelligence. So not all AI in the setting necessarily has stats. Otherwise your TacSoft would require a full writeup, which is ridiculous. I personally can see why the devs didn't want to stat out an AI whose active lifespan can be measured in seconds. Second, a lot of the questions you ask would add unnecessary levels of complexity to the game. But for clarity's sake, I guess you can think of seekers as vehicles whose sole purpose is to make a simple delivery... of explosives into your target's nutsack with as much accuracy and force as physically possible. But for the sake of playability, the game presumes that your attack roll encompasses any and all maneuver rolls that might be required mid-flight of said vehicle in order to reach its target. Finally, if it bothers you enough, you don't have to think of it as jamming. You can control devices by wireless link whether or not they are shells, and seekers have guidance systems allowing them to travel through the air. Your mesh inserts simply take the input data from said seeker and convert it into XP on the fly, allowing you to guide said seeker with the same instincts as you would your body. Functionally the same as jamming, but technically different. As for ramming damage, it's fine if you want to consider it that, but note that the mass of said seeker is miniscule, so the actual ram DV would be an insignificant number, which when multiplied by velocity would probably still equal a value below 1. All of its damage is from the effect of the explosive payload.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 03:49

#12

Smokeskin

Lalande21185 wrote:nick012000

Lalande21185 wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
You're forgetting the variant ammo types for kinetic weapons. Giving them Armor Piercing makes them vastly superior to the beam weapons, since it moves things back to the first table, while the beam weapons deal with the second table.
I didn't include a lot of things, as I wasn't trying to prove that beam weapons were superior to kinetic weapons (that would require factoring in firing modes), only that they weren't useless against synthmorphs as the book suggested. I provided the kinetic weapons to provided context for the numbers I provided for the beam weapons.

When you factor in ammo, kinetic weapons are much better as it typically gives them both more damage and better chance of hitting, and of course you should factor it in instead of trying to prove your point by cherry picking. You also compare: light pistol (weakest pistol, one-handed and concealable) to a laser pulser (two-handed and unconcealable). assault rifle (medium cost, 900m range) to particle bolter (high cost, 250m range)

Thu, 2013-08-08 11:16

#13

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Replies to everyone

@ OneTrikPony The vehicle collision rules aren't really the problem here, it is the authors of this section recklessly mashing together two subsystems of the game (by allowing seekers and probably smart bullets to be considered vehicles) without any thought at all on how they interact. A seeker was never meant to act as a vehicle in the original rules and attempting to have them act as vehicles total borks the system. @ Decivre

Decivre wrote:
You're overthinking this.

I am not overthinking this... everyone else is underthinking it :) Seriously though, I am looking at this from a rules perspective and wondering how it would work if I wanted to do this in game. I think is a very valid style of analysis. And of course it doesn't work very well by the rules, but that is not my fault. It is the fault of the person who wrote this section without the least regard for the rules.

Quote:
Artificial Intelligence is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses any form of software that can act predictively. If you want to be very technical about it, many forms of software could also count as artificial intelligence, because pattern recognition and heuristics analysis often requires the use of some form of simple intelligence. So not all AI in the setting necessarily has stats. Otherwise your TacSoft would require a full writeup, which is ridiculous. I personally can see why the devs didn't want to stat out an AI whose active lifespan can be measured in seconds.

Normally, you would be right as the AI doesn't make any rolls in the system and therefore doesn't need stats. Unfortunately, under the bizarre mishmash of rules that the authors of this section foisted off on us without a moments thought or consideration, you are wrong as the AI is now required to make: attack rolls, perception rolls, piloting rolls, etc. as now seekers and smart bullets are shells. This is part of why I am objecting to this section. I don't want to have to keep track of AI systems for every smart bullet and seeker. Heck, they probably need to roll initiative if the firer isn't direct controlling it.

Quote:
Second, a lot of the questions you ask would add unnecessary levels of complexity to the game.

That is precisely my point. Mashing the vehicle and weapon rules together haphazardly like the authors did does add an unnecessary level of complexity to the game. The questions were designed to point that out.

Quote:
But for clarity's sake, I guess you can think of seekers as vehicles whose sole purpose is to make a simple delivery... of explosives into your target's nutsack with as much accuracy and force as physically possible. But for the sake of playability, the game presumes that your attack roll encompasses any and all maneuver rolls that might be required mid-flight of said vehicle in order to reach its target.

Yes it [b]DID[/b]. But now apparently it doesn't. Which is why I am ranting about this section. It makes something that should be simple, attacking with a missile, incredible complex because it treats seekers as vehicles.

Quote:
Finally, if it bothers you enough, you don't have to think of it as jamming. You can control devices by wireless link whether or not they are shells, and seekers have guidance systems allowing them to travel through the air. Your mesh inserts simply take the input data from said seeker and convert it into XP on the fly, allowing you to guide said seeker with the same instincts as you would your body. Functionally the same as jamming, but technically different.

It is explicitly stated in the text as jamming. It is in a section about jamming. If they meant for it to be something else they would have said so. However, that doesn't make a difference. My problem is that this section treats high velocity projectiles as shells, which doesn't work very well with the rules.

Quote:
As for ramming damage, it's fine if you want to consider it that, but note that the mass of said seeker is miniscule, so the actual ram DV would be an insignificant number, which when multiplied by velocity would probably still equal a value below 1. All of its damage is from the effect of the explosive payload.

Actually, low mass, high velocity objects typically inflict 2d10 + X DV in the rules. After all that is how bullets work :) @Smokeskin

Smokeskin wrote:
When you factor in ammo, kinetic weapons are much better as it typically gives them both more damage and better chance of hitting, and of course you should factor it in instead of trying to prove your point by cherry picking. You also compare: light pistol (weakest pistol, one-handed and concealable) to a laser pulser (two-handed and unconcealable). assault rifle (medium cost, 900m range) to particle bolter (high cost, 250m range)

Again, I am not trying to show that beam weapons [b]are better than kinetic weapons[/b]. I am trying to show that beam weapons [b]are not useless against synthmorph[/b]. I can't say something like "when rolling a 32 to hit, a particle beam bolter has a 28% chance to outright kill a 40 DUR 8/8 armor synth or a 55% chance when calling a shot to bypass armor or using moxie", without providing some context for those numbers. That was the purpose of the automatic rifle and the light pistol in the comparison. To provide context. [b]Not[/b] to show that kinetic weapons are inferior to beam weapons. If you also know that an automatic rifle firing on full auto for +3d10 damage without any special ammo has a 32% or 44% chance to kill the same target with the same roll, then the numbers for the beam bolter have context: you know generally how deadly the beam bolter is. Do you see what I am saying? Also, pulsers are one handed weapons (p. 338) and they do the same damage as cybernetic hand lasers, so the comparison is equally valid for them, if you want more comparable in size weapons. Furthermore: This post and preceding posts are in no way meant to endorse firing in full auto for +3d10 DV. Firing kinetic weapons this way is generally suboptimal. Kinetic weapons should be fired in burst mode, with the bursts doing +1d10 DV. The exception is when you are planning on using moxie to bypass armor when and you already have a good hit chance.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 11:37

#14

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

On to the ranting...

Okay, the part I have been waiting for: [b]AGI and Informorph Rules[/b] In preparation for how much I am going to be ranting at this section I am going to go through it one subheading at a time. So the main heading section... is not bad. Only a paragraph though, so maybe it will get worse later. [b]Infomorph Software[/b] Again, not bad. I remember hating this section when I read it in the playtest. Something must be wrong with me. I can't even complain about the absurdly short timeframes to program, as that a problem with the speed and task action rules, not really this section. [b]Software Plug-Ins[/b] I wish that they had made the plug-in modify software in general (so that you can have illegal software stored on a cranial computer or ecto for instance). Huh, brainhacking an infomorph should not have the -30 penalty. That's from the cyberbrain hardware right? Wait, it looks like they retconned that on page 148. I don't know how I feel about that. I mean it makes it simpler to remember in play (any brainhacking = -30 modifier) but cyberbrains, with hardware security features, should be more secure than infomorphs right? Oh hey, I found out something new = cyberbrains don't have the -30 penalty for admin accounts! I am almost as floored as I was when I learned that you could merge forks using mnemonic augmentation rather than ego bridges. Looks like I have my first errata for Kill The Queen. Mystic X will be happy though. The emergency backup plug-in is non functional. That is it literally does nothing. This is because it uses the rules for quantum cryptography to secure the egos (and it even references the page number). However the rules for quantum cryptography require [b]HARDWARE[/b] to be physically entangled at [b]THE SAME LOCATION[/b]. So as a software plug in it is [b] COMPLETELY USELESS[/b] as it cannot transmit the backups. [b]Upgrades[/b] I dislike most of the upgrades, but they are not game breakingly bad, or ignorant of the existing rules as far as I can tell (except maybe the panopticon upgrade). However, I am reading the Cyberbrains and Infomorph Software sidebar to require separate upgrades for infomorphs and cyberbrains (essentially to have an upgrade for both the infomorph and synthmorph you need two different upgrades and each synthmorph requires a unique upgrade). If this is not the intent then upgrades are game-breakingly good as they transfer from body to body and I hate them with the fiery passion of the burning hearts of a thousand suns. They are so massively overpowered as to make anything other than a synthmorph/infomorph a fools choice. Some of the upgrades are worse than the others and I will point them out here: Impersonate: This upgrade should be jailed for murder. It killed the impersonation skill. Emotional Dampeners was its accomplice. Increased Speed: Will everyone ever want this? Heck, yes. It is SOFTWARE that increases SPEED. Thankfully, it is not as gamebreakingly bad as it was in the playtest version though, so that's something. Panopticon: is basically an inferior version of Oracles (which are available as software according to the sidebar), so I don't see why anyone would want the panopticon upgrade; especially as oracles only have a moderate cost. Also (this actually relates to the vehicle weapon's thing we were talking about above) I don't like the rules hidden in a piece of gear/software thing that the authors are doing here. The others, while bad (basically synthmorph/infomorph only stress regeneration and a virtual WIL increase), don't seem quite as bad as the other three, though I hate that they diminish the WIL stat. I can see how others might like these though (because they dumped WIL). And, there is something funny going on with emotional dampeners (cyberbrains only?) and endocrine control (upgrades only? but does that mean that cyberbrains can run them? Why isn't endocrine control listed as cyberware then? maybe so vehicles can't run it? Then why are emotional dampers cyberware?). I think this might be a typo, or they might have meant to include them both on both tables (the bioware available as upgrades table, and the bioware available as cybernetics table). Either way this should be clarified. [b]Eidolons[/b] I hated this section back when I first read it, so lets see if I still hate it. Yes. Here is the thing: "Note that eidolons, like basic infomorphs, are software emulations of the hardware used by cyberbrains" The authors completely borked up here. Consider two hardware systems. The same size and the same speed but different hardware (say one is binary and the other trinary). We shall call one system A and one system B. Operating system C is capable of running only on system A's hardware. However, system B is running a emulation of system A's hardware on which operating system C can run. Now the question: a program running on operating system C is going to be faster on which hardware system? If you said system B, then apparently you are the author of this section because everyone else can see that system A is faster as it lacks the emulation overhead. Also: Cyberbrains. Completely useless. When purchasing a morph the best thing to do is replace the cyberbrain with a ghostrider module and a puppet sock and run as an eidolons on the ghost rider module. Not only is it cheaper but you will get superior results. Cyberbrains have absolutely no benefit anymore. None. There is no reason for them to exist at all once eidolons are in the picture. This gets incredibly weird when the failure of understanding hardware emulation is combined with the second part! It is better to replace hardware with an emulation of that hardware running on equivalent technology. What kind of bizarro world do the authors live in? In short, the authors [b]critically failed to understand the limitations of hardware emulation[/b] and Eidolons are easily one of the worst things in the book that I have read so far (excepting the Roleplaying Insanity section). Fixing eidolons is easy however: limit them to running on high end (very large) servers. Also count them as like 5 infomorphs for the purposes of what the server can handle. Problem solved. [b]Running on Devices[/b] I like this section. Specifically the aptitude max section at the very beginning. I wish however that they also limited the speed based on the capability of the device, for example: ecto and ghostrider = 1 action. Large computer = 2 actions max. Server = 3 actions max. Special Server = 4 actions max. Not really a rant. More like a wish. Sighs. Typo Alert: Overloaded devices: there is an artifact from an earlier version of the rules here: "or provide them with additional actions (such as mind speed)" However, "mind speed" does not exist. [b]Infomorph Actions[/b] This section seems fine. Though it is a little weird to see a psychosurgery rule in here. Also shouldn't the Psych Scan reference the infomorph brainhacking rules on p. 148 of Transhuman, rather than the cyberbrain hacking rules in [em]Eclipse Phase[/em]? [b]Attacking Infomorphs[/b] Other than the brainhacking rules mentioned above, which I am ambivalent about, everything about this section seems fine. [b]Overall[/b] This section isn't as bad as I remembered. There is one plug-in that is stupidly non-functional and of course upgrades and Eidolons are horrible but they are easily fixed. Unfortunately, this means I couldn't get a good rant going. Sorry guys. Playing Characters (44/75 = 58.6% done)

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 12:41

#15

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:Normally,

Lalande21185 wrote:
Normally, you would be right as the AI doesn't make any rolls in the system and therefore doesn't need stats. Unfortunately, under the bizarre mishmash of rules that the authors of this section foisted off on us without a moments thought or consideration, you are wrong as the AI is now required to make: attack rolls, perception rolls, piloting rolls, etc. as now seekers and smart bullets are shells. This is part of why I am objecting to this section. I don't want to have to keep track of AI systems for every smart bullet and seeker. Heck, they probably need to roll initiative if the firer isn't direct controlling it.

If this is the case, then the rules mandate that Behavioral Psych, Event Reconstruction, Facial/Image Recognition, Firewall, Kinesics, Probability Mapping, Radio Motion Detection, Relationship Mapping, Tactical Networks and Tracking software all require full stat writeups, as they all contain artificially intelligent heuristics and pattern recognition. But this is an insane stance to take. Why are you so bothered by giving people the ability to guide missiles in the air? You do realize that this technology exists, right? You don't like your hard science fiction games to have real technologies?

Lalande21185 wrote:
That is precisely my point. Mashing the vehicle and weapon rules together haphazardly like the authors did does add an unnecessary level of complexity to the game. The questions were designed to point that out. -snip- Yes it DID. But now apparently it doesn't. Which is why I am ranting about this section. It makes something that should be simple, attacking with a missile, incredible complex because it treats seekers as vehicles. -snip- It is explicitly stated in the text as jamming. It is in a section about jamming. If they meant for it to be something else they would have said so. However, that doesn't make a difference. My problem is that this section treats high velocity projectiles as shells, which doesn't work very well with the rules.

How would you have handled remote-controlled missiles within the context of the rules? Would it have been as simple as handling it the same as jamming, or would it have been more complex?

Lalande21185 wrote:
Actually, low mass, high velocity objects typically inflict 2d10 + X DV in the rules. After all that is how bullets work :)

I was trying to simplify things. To be honest, if you're trying to hit your target physically with an explosive weapon, you're doing it wrong.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 13:16

#16

Decivre

Alright, time for my quibbles

Alright, time for my quibbles and questions.... Finally got a chance to check out the async section to a large degree. Doesn't Sense Infection seem redundant? I mean asyncs can already affect one another at double the normal range... shouldn't they innately be informed of each other's presences as soon as they have the ability to affect each other? How can their bioelectric fields interact with one another, and affect one another, at a distance without asyncs just getting an odd vibe in each other's presence? Hell, if I really want to detect other asyncs, I can use the Ego Sense sleight at the same amount, and basically have async radar rather than one-use-per-target async detection... if I detect you at more than normal range, I KNOW you're an async. I LOVE the Squishbot modification, but it raises more questions than answers. Can their bodies go rigid? Can a squishbot still form propellers and such for mobility if they have shape adjusting? Can they, combined with chameleon skin and skinflex, imitate biomorphs? Can they get the hardened skeleton mod? Can I become a tentacled hentai monster? Why is this necessary for passing through very small spaces when flexbots can form fractal digits and pass their mass along nanoscopic-scale tubes of their own fingers? Shouldn't more robotic enhancements be banned? Can I still have turrets? ... Can I be a tentacled hentai monster? Also in the flexbot section, modularized gear. Why is this considered an enhancement to the robot, rather than an enhancement to equipment? Flexbots are modular, shouldn't they be able to integrate any modularized gear, rather than having to have it built in? [insert pig boobs reference here] As for morph creation, there needs to be a bit of clarification. Can I make eidolons with aptitudes lower than 40? Don't allow it, it's ripe for abuse; you should put a restriction on that in step 3. Finally, the new rules for infomorphs are weird. I get that the hardware I run on decides my stat limits, but why is my max aptitudes so restricted? Do I have such reduced stats for a Ghostrider Module? If my server can handle two infomorphs but I'm the only one on it, does that allow me to hit max aptitudes?

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 14:09

#17

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Response to Decivre

First: Kinesics software has a skill value listed (it is 40). Second: None the other programs make tests on their own. They allow characters/AI/egos/whatever to make certain tests or give bonuses. Therefore, none of these need full stat right ups. Simple rule: if it makes tests on its own (like all shells) it needs its own stats. Third: You seem to be under a misconception. I have nothing against allowing people to guide missiles in the air, provided they have the right smart ammo options in the missiles. Remember that seekers automatically come with one smart ammo option other than biter and flayer (p. 340). So things like Homing Seekers can probably be controlled remotely over a wireless link, while laser-guided, not so much. What I do have problems with is using the [b]jamming/shell control[/b] rules to do it when you should be using the [b]weapon[/b] rules. Example of how I would do it:

Spoiler: Highlight to view

Notes: Hunk, has seeker weapons 60 and no pilot skills and speed 2, he is in an underground facility with short corridors with lots of turns. GM: It is Hunks turn now. Hunk's Player: I want to aim my seeker rifle and fire a seeker up the corridor and around the corner to the left so I can see what is making that noise through the seeker. I have homing seekers. GM: No problem. Make an attack roll with a -30 modifier (equivalent to indirect or blind fire.) Hunk's Player: With the bonus from my smartlink and homing rounds, I rolled a 9 out of 60. GM: You guide the missile down the corridor and around the corner successfully, on the other side is your friend Spider grappling with someone you can't see because they are invisible. You have microseconds to react. What do you want the seeker to do? Hunk's Player: Turnaround and go down the right junction. GM: You only rolled a 9? The seeker is moving too fast and is not maneuverable enough. It slams into the wall as you try. Do you want it to explode? The blast will hit Spider as well as her opponent. Hunk: No. GM: The seeker impacts the wall without detonating. The seeker rifle is SA so you have another shot left...

The point of the example is this: Seeker should use the Seeker Weapon Skill and normal combat/shooting rules, not the jamming rules which are for shells.

Quote:
I was trying to simplify things. To be honest, if you're trying to hit your target physically with an explosive weapon, you're doing it wrong.

Depends on what you are firing. Some weapons like RPGs and anti-armor weapons need to hit their target for the best effect.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 15:11

#18

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Pathetic Failure to Rant and a response to Decivre's question

Okay, the [b]Playing Asyncs[/b] section. Lets see... I realize what this section is trying to say but it says it weirdly as the Exsurgent Virus they are talking about is not a 'virus' virus or even a 'computer virus', but a persistant alteration to the persons mind. This is why if they resleeve it is still with them. I wish that they had phrased this section more clearly. Oh, typo alert: "not cured of their contact with th exsurgent" - th should be the. Reading on... Relationship with the Virus: Oh hey, a Dexter reference. New Sleights: Aphasic Touch - Shouldn't this use the Psi-Assault Skill not the Control skill? Sense Infection - Very useful for firewall agents. I like this. [b]@Decivre:[/b] Note that this sleight doesn't just detect asyncs, it detects ANYONE infected with the exsurgent virus, even if they aren't asyncs. It also (at the GM's discretion) gives additional information about the other types of exsurgent virus. Further note, that all close psi-sleights work at a variable range, is the person an async or did you just get a good roll? Of course, using a touch range sleight to test for asyncs gets around this, but works only at close range rather than double close. So Sense Infection is actually more useful than using another sleight to test for asyncs. Xeno-empathy - Seems really limited. Good for gatecrashers I guess. Watts-Macleod disorders: I don't like alien sensory disorder as it is actually beneficial to have this disorder. Avoiding 3+ DV in exchange for taste or smell or even hearing (have your muse hear for you and put text pop ups for sounds, or if your in a vacuum you can't hear anyways) is a pretty good deal. Even losing touch can be beneficial in some instances (no more pain). In short it is an advantage to take this disorder. So, nothing really to rant about this section. It was pretty good besides some awkward phrasing, a bad disorder, and using the wrong skill for a sleight. I am going to call it here for the day as the site is slower than molasses. Playing Characters (49/75 = 65.3% done) Edit: Changed to right chapter.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 15:11

#19

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:First:

Lalande21185 wrote:
First: Kinesics software has a skill value listed (it is 40). Second: None the other programs make tests on their own. They allow characters/AI/egos/whatever to make certain tests or give bonuses. Therefore, none of these need full stat right ups. Simple rule: if it makes tests on its own (like all shells) it needs its own stats.

The Neo-Cetacean Translation Device has the Exotic Language: Neo-Cetacean skill. Does it require a full writeup? A number of the things I listed actually have their own skills: Behavioral Psych software has Academics: Psychology at 80; Kinesics Software has a Kinesics skill of 40. Do these need full writeups?

Lalande21185 wrote:
Third: You seem to be under a misconception. I have nothing against allowing people to guide missiles in the air, provided they have the right smart ammo options in the missiles. Remember that seekers automatically come with one smart ammo option other than biter and flayer (p. 340). So things like Homing Seekers can probably be controlled remotely over a wireless link, while laser-guided, not so much.

All seekers have guidance systems and smart weapon integration. If it can course-correct in mid-flight, it can be controlled... and therefore jammed. The only argument you might be able to make is that the pilot is restricted based on the types of sensors that specific seeker type might have... a laser-guided seeker can only see infrared, for example. Otherwise, I don't see why you couldn't jam them. So how about this as a rule: if it can be used for indirect fire, it can be jammed.

Lalande21185 wrote:
What I do have problems with is using the [b]jamming/shell control[/b] rules to do it when you should be using the [b]weapon[/b] rules. Example of how I would do it:
Spoiler: Highlight to view
Notes: Hunk, has seeker weapons 60 and no pilot skills and speed 2, he is in an underground facility with short corridors with lots of turns. GM: It is Hunks turn now. Hunk's Player: I want to aim my seeker rifle and fire a seeker up the corridor and around the corner to the left so I can see what is making that noise through the seeker. I have homing seekers. GM: No problem. Make an attack roll with a -30 modifier (equivalent to indirect or blind fire.) Hunk's Player: With the bonus from my smartlink and homing rounds, I rolled a 9 out of 60. GM: You guide the missile down the corridor and around the corner successfully, on the other side is your friend Spider grappling with someone you can't see because they are invisible. You have microseconds to react. What do you want the seeker to do? Hunk's Player: Turnaround and go down the right junction. GM: You only rolled a 9? The seeker is moving too fast and is not maneuverable enough. It slams into the wall as you try. Do you want it to explode? The blast will hit Spider as well as her opponent. Hunk: No. GM: The seeker impacts the wall without detonating. The seeker rifle is SA so you have another shot left...
The point of the example is this: Seeker should use the Seeker Weapon Skill and normal combat/shooting rules, not the jamming rules which are for shells.

What about when someone other than the firer is jamming the seeker? What about when a person with skill in high-velocity drones jams a seeker, despite having no skill with holding missile launchers? Your interpretation is very narrow, and only allows for a specific use of seekers (when the person firing the seeker is also the one jamming). One that I might not even actually allow, since jamming requires complete takeover of the pilot's sensorium, thus making it nearly impossible for them to actually aim and fire the seeker in the first place.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Depends on what you are firing. Some weapons like RPGs and anti-armor weapons need to hit their target for the best effect.

Seekers do not. Most up-and-coming explosive weapons do not. The science of warfare has apparently decided that close-range air-burst detonation is far more effective than impact detonation. I'm guessing that unless you're using ancient weapons, this is irrelevant.

Lalande21185 wrote:
[b]@Decivre:[/b] Note that this sleight doesn't just detect asyncs, it detects ANYONE infected with the exsurgent virus, even if they aren't asyncs. It also (at the GM's discretion) gives additional information about the other types of exsurgent virus. Further note, that all close psi-sleights work at a variable range, is the person an async or did you just get a good roll? Of course, using a touch range sleight to test for asyncs gets around this, but works only at close range rather than double close. So Sense Infection is actually more useful than using another sleight to test for asyncs.

Okay, that's true. Still, it's only equally as useful as Thought Browse for hunting asyncs. The only real usefulness for this sleight is finding non-psi exsurgents.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 16:52

#20

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

More on seekers...

Decivre wrote:
The Neo-Cetacean Translation Device has the Exotic Language: Neo-Cetacean skill. Does it require a full writeup? A number of the things I listed actually have their own skills: Behavioral Psych software has Academics: Psychology at 80; Kinesics Software has a Kinesics skill of 40. Do these need full writeups?

Oops.. my bad, I didn't check to see if the others had skills as well (I should have remembered the Neo-Cetacean Translation Device :( ). And yes they should have full writeups. However, our definition of full writeup may be different: For me: full writeup = listing any skills they have and any aptitudes that differ from the baseline of 10. So yes, they should have full writeups, and they do, so my rule stands.

Quote:
All seekers have guidance systems and smart weapon integration. If it can course-correct in mid-flight, it can be controlled... and therefore jammed. The only argument you might be able to make is that the pilot is restricted based on the types of sensors that specific seeker type might have... a laser-guided seeker can only see infrared, for example. Otherwise, I don't see why you couldn't jam them.

First of all, smart weapon integration does not imply that they have full wireless control and XP broadcasting capabilities. Most RL laser guided weapons lack these capabilities and I see no reason that weapons in EP, even seekers, would include them by default.

Quote:
So how about this as a rule: if it can be used for indirect fire, it can be jammed.

How about this as a rule. If it can be used for indirect fire you use the weapon rules instead of the jamming rules, because I sure as heck don't want to have to bust out the jamming rules everytime someone fires a seeker, homing bullets, or a grenade. Note: That I include control of the missile by pointing directly; through programming before it leaves the weapon; or while in flight through wireless, wires, whatever, as part of the Seeker weapon skill. That [b]is[/b] what the skill is for.

Quote:
What about when someone other than the firer is jamming the seeker?

They delay until the weapon is fired. Then the holder takes a complex action to fire, but the controller makes the seeker weapon test instead of the holder (the same as if they were controlling the seeker rifle or someone was firing someone else's particle beam bolter), using a complex action.

Quote:
What about when a person with skill in high-velocity drones jams a seeker, despite having no skill with holding missile launchers?

Then that person rolls the default. If they specifically took that skill (Pilot: High Velocity Drone) just for seeker weapons then I would let them permanently swap it for the Seeker Weapon skill. If they took the skill in order to obtain proficiency with seeker weapons along with all the benefits of the high-velocity drones skill, thereby deliberately subverting the intent of the rules, then that person is a munchkin.

Quote:
Your interpretation is very narrow, and only allows for a specific use of seekers (when the person firing the seeker is also the one jamming). One that I might not even actually allow, since jamming requires complete takeover of the pilot's sensorium, thus making it nearly impossible for them to actually aim and fire the seeker in the first place.

No one is jamming a seeker in my example? And I think I see the problem between us. Let me know if I am correct: Decivre: Jamming = equals any form of control during flight or generally through XP control. Lalande: Jamming = very specific rules for controlling shells. You are focused on qualitative interpretations (a very valid approach, I might add) while I am focused on the rules. Because I feel that we are miscommunicating on some fundamental level, let me restate my original complaint: I see controlling the missile during flight as an ordinary part of using the seeker weapon skill. No one needs to 'jam' a missile as part of the ordinary operation of the Seeker including remotely controlling a seeker during flight. If you try to incorporate the jamming rules into the weapon rules, you get all sort of weirdness and it really messes up the system. I could give examples all day. I gave one with the collision DV above, there are many more. However, instead of doing that I listed questions about how it worked in the rules as a form of short hand. That was the purpose of the questions, to highlight the ways that the two systems, weapon and jamming, mesh inelegantly. To reiterate: I don't want to treat smart ammo as shells, thereby including all the complicated shell rules. I don't want the seeker skill rendered useless thanks to AI pilots (required to jam, remember) and shell aptitude caps (they exist) and all the other specific jamming rules. I don't want to have to try to mangle the jamming rules in order to use them for something they were never intended for. I do think that seekers can be controlled in flight, however, I see this as part of the weapon rules, not part of the jamming rules. I do think that seekers can be remote controlled in flight. I do think that they can have guidance systems capable of this (depending on the smart ammo option chosen). I don't think that the shell control rules are necessary for this as I believe that the WEAPON rules covers everything needed for the firing of seekers, including control during flight. Man, I feel like I am not explaining my objections to the mashing of the two rulesets well... Let me try again tomorrow after some sleep.

Quote:
Seekers do not. Most up-and-coming explosive weapons do not. The science of warfare has apparently decided that close-range air-burst detonation is far more effective than impact detonation. I'm guessing that unless you're using ancient weapons, this is irrelevant.

I will agree that this is irrelevant for the rules and our discussion, but I am interested to know, what forms of anti-armor weapons use airbursts? Almost all anti-armor weapons I know of use things like the Munroe effect (HEAT and variants HEDP, ect.) to penetrate armor, which requires a pretty direct hit. Also I was under the impression that airbursts were generally pretty useless against heavy armor?

Quote:
Okay, that's true. Still, it's only equally as useful as Thought Browse for hunting asyncs. The only real usefulness for this sleight is finding non-psi exsurgents.

That's really useful don't you think? Remember all the exsurgents aren't necessarily inhuman monsters. They could be hiding in plain sight...

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 17:48

#21

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:Oops.. my

Lalande21185 wrote:
Oops.. my bad, I didn't check to see if the others had skills as well (I should have remembered the Neo-Cetacean Translation Device :( ). And yes they should have full writeups. However, our definition of full writeup may be different: For me: full writeup = listing any skills they have and any aptitudes that differ from the baseline of 10. So yes, they should have full writeups, and they do, so my rule stands.

The rule still fails. As software, you can run any number of these programs on your mesh inserts or ectos. If they count as full AI, then you can only have one running at a time, and can no longer run your muse. Which makes computers in this game largely worthless.

kaigen wrote:
First of all, smart weapon integration does not imply that they have full wireless control and XP broadcasting capabilities. Most RL laser guided weapons lack these capabilities and I see no reason that weapons in EP, even seekers, would include them by default.

Real life laser-guided weapons aren't smart weapons, at least in the context of Eclipse Phase. In Eclipse Phase, you're talking about such things as Smartlink, a standard for all seeker weapons. And Smartlink's rules say the following: "Smartlinks also incorporate a microcamera that allows the user to see what the weapon is pointed at, fire around corners, etc. Smartlinks also allow certain other types of weapon system control, such as changing flux ammo (p. 338) or programming seeker trigger conditions (p. 199)." Obviously, we can now add "jamming seeker rounds" to the list of things that smartlink does.

Lalande21185 wrote:
How about this as a rule. If it can be used for indirect fire you use the weapon rules instead of the jamming rules, because I sure as heck don't want to have to bust out the jamming rules everytime someone fires a seeker, homing bullets, or a grenade. Note: That I include control of the missile by pointing directly; through programming before it leaves the weapon; or while in flight through wireless, wires, whatever, as part of the Seeker weapon skill. That [b]is[/b] what the skill is for.

Sure, and I probably would allow someone to use their seeker skill to remote control a round (after all, if you can jam it you should be able to direct control it instead). But doing so should not be treated as a traditional attack, because it isn't. It might not even be an attack at all (if you're using your seeker to scout ahead, what are you attacking?). And jamming is an innately unique use of both seekers and shells... you don't use your piloting skills when you jam a vehicle, so why should you use your seeker skills when you jam a seeker?

Lalande21185 wrote:
They delay until the weapon is fired. Then the holder takes a complex action to fire, but the controller makes the seeker weapon test instead of the holder (the same as if they were controlling the seeker rifle or someone was firing someone else's particle beam bolter), using a complex action.

Again, this still omits the fact that jamming is a significantly different experience from traditional weapon usage.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Then that person rolls the default. If they specifically took that skill (Pilot: High Velocity Drone) just for seeker weapons then I would let them permanently swap it for the Seeker Weapon skill. If they took the skill in order to obtain proficiency with seeker weapons along with all the benefits of the high-velocity drones skill, thereby deliberately subverting the intent of the rules, then that person is a munchkin.

Jamming does not use piloting skills, your argument is invalid.

Lalande21185 wrote:
No one is jamming a seeker in my example? And I think I see the problem between us. Let me know if I am correct: Decivre: Jamming = equals any form of control during flight or generally through XP control. Lalande: Jamming = very specific rules for controlling shells. You are focused on qualitative interpretations (a very valid approach, I might add) while I am focused on the rules. Because I feel that we are miscommunicating on some fundamental level, let me restate my original complaint: I see controlling the missile during flight as an ordinary part of using the seeker weapon skill. No one needs to 'jam' a missile as part of the ordinary operation of the Seeker including remotely controlling a seeker during flight. If you try to incorporate the jamming rules into the weapon rules, you get all sort of weirdness and it really messes up the system. I could give examples all day. I gave one with the collision DV above, there are many more. However, instead of doing that I listed questions about how it worked in the rules as a form of short hand. That was the purpose of the questions, to highlight the ways that the two systems, weapon and jamming, mesh inelegantly. To reiterate: I don't want to treat smart ammo as shells, thereby including all the complicated shell rules. I don't want the seeker skill rendered useless thanks to AI pilots (required to jam, remember) and shell aptitude caps (they exist) and all the other specific jamming rules. I don't want to have to try to mangle the jamming rules in order to use them for something they were never intended for. I do think that seekers can be controlled in flight, however, I see this as part of the weapon rules, not part of the jamming rules. I do think that seekers can be remote controlled in flight. I do think that they can have guidance systems capable of this (depending on the smart ammo option chosen). I don't think that the shell control rules are necessary for this as I believe that the WEAPON rules covers everything needed for the firing of seekers, including control during flight. Man, I feel like I am not explaining my objections to the mashing of the two rulesets well... Let me try again tomorrow after some sleep.

Actually, my definition of jamming has nothing to do with flight control in general. If I were to give a strict definition for jamming, it would be this: a complex interweave of XP and direct neural interface that is used to give a pilot the general sensation that they [b]are[/b] the object they are in control of. Bam. This definition does not in any way restrict jamming to shells, and broadens its use to any device that meets three criteria: [list=1][*]The device must have some way to sense the outside world. [*]The device must have some automated aspects, and cannot be inanimate (internally or externally. [*]The device must be able to connect wirelessly to other devices.[/list] So long as any device can fit with these things, I say it can be jammed. If a frisbee has a spin-adjusting panoramic camera and the ability to shift its shape in flight, then you can jam it. If a city camera can be commanded to rotate wirelessly, then you can jam it. If a vibrator has tactile sensors and wireless capability, then you can jam it. I don't see why jamming has to be relegated only to shells as a mandate.

Lalande21185 wrote:
I will agree that this is irrelevant for the rules and our discussion, but I am interested to know, what forms of anti-armor weapons use airbursts? Almost all anti-armor weapons I know of use things like the Munroe effect (HEAT and variants HEDP, ect.) to penetrate armor, which requires a pretty direct hit. Also I was under the impression that airbursts were generally pretty useless against heavy armor?

Thermobaric weapons are pretty effective against armored targets , and they are in no way benefitted from impacting the target (I believe that would hinder the dispersal of the aerosol explosive). Plasmaburst weapons, at the temperatures they likely reach, likely ignore most armors and do severe damage regardless. HEAP rounds might be impact weapons, though. I'll give you that. They also don't do as much damage to targets farther away from the explosion as the others do. Note that other than the two I listed above (and fragmentation), no other explosives have armor piercing. So to some degree, they got that right.

Lalande21185 wrote:
That's really useful don't you think? Remember all the exsurgents aren't necessarily inhuman monsters. They could be hiding in plain sight...

As a general rule, asyncs should [b]never[/b] get so close to exsurgents that they can even use their sleights on them. Because risk of re-infection is very high (at least before they released the dominant strain trait). If you're close enough to touch an exsurgent with your mind, the exsurgent is close enough to touch you with his.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 21:39

#22

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Reply to Decivre

[h1]AIs[/h1] Lets start by going back over our entire argument regarding the AI's and look at exactly what we are arguing:

Decivre wrote:
Artificial Intelligence is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses any form of software that can act predicatively. If you want to be very technical about it, many forms of software could also count as artificial intelligence, because pattern recognition and heuristics analysis often requires the use of some form of simple intelligence. So not all AI in the setting necessarily has stats. Otherwise your TacSoft would require a full writeup, which is ridiculous. I personally can see why the devs didn't want to stat out an AI whose active lifespan can be measured in seconds.

Here you are saying that all these software are AIs. However, it is obvious that you mean 'real world AI' and not 'game system AI'. To keep these straight I will use the term realAI and gameAI from hereon.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Normally, you would be right as the AI doesn't make any rolls in the system and therefore doesn't need stats. Unfortunately, under the bizarre mishmash of rules that the authors of this section foisted off on us without a moments thought or consideration, you are wrong as the AI is now required to make: attack rolls, perception rolls, piloting rolls, etc. as now seekers and smart bullets are shells. This is part of why I am objecting to this section. I don't want to have to keep track of AI systems for every smart bullet and seeker. Heck, they probably need to roll initiative if the firer isn't direct controlling it.

Here I am saying that only realAIs that make tests need to have stats. I go on to elaborate that the AI for seekers now needs stats as it makes tests (see the next section though). This seems very reasonable. Without stats how will you know what to roll for the tests?

D wrote:
If this is the case, then the rules mandate that Behavioral Psych, Event Reconstruction, Facial/Image Recognition, Firewall, Kinesics, Probability Mapping, Radio Motion Detection, Relationship Mapping, Tactical Networks and Tracking software all require full stat writeups, as they all contain artificially intelligent heuristics and pattern recognition.

Here you are saying, according to me, anything that is a realAI needs to have stats. That this is not my position. My position is that only realAI that make tests need stats.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Second: None the other programs make tests on their own. They allow characters/AI/egos/whatever to make certain tests or give bonuses. Therefore, none of these need full stat right ups. Simple rule: if it makes tests on its own (like all shells) it needs its own stats.

This is me reiterating my position, though I mistakenly concluded that none of these software made tests. Also I misspelled write :(

Quote:
The Neo-Cetacean Translation Device has the Exotic Language: Neo-Cetacean skill. Does it require a full writeup? A number of the things I listed actually have their own skills: Behavioral Psych software has Academics: Psychology at 80; Kinesics Software has a Kinesics skill of 40. Do these need full writeups?

Here is the problem, and it is mine through poor word choice. As I tried to clarify later, by 'full stat write up' I meant everything needed to make a test. I didn't realize that you were using it to mean 'gameAI'. I apologize for the confusion.

Quote:
Oops.. my bad, I didn't check to see if the others had skills as well (I should have remembered the Neo-Cetacean Translation Device :( ). And yes they should have full writeups. However, our definition of full writeup may be different: For me: full writeup = listing any skills they have and any aptitudes that differ from the baseline of 10. So yes, they should have full writeups, and they do, so my rule stands.

This is me trying to say that the 'full write ups' are just everything needed to make a test. I didn't realized that you meant 'full write up' to mean gameAI and I see how my word choice further resulted in confusion.

Quote:
The rule still fails. As software, you can run any number of these programs on your mesh inserts or ectos. If they count as full AI, then you can only have one running at a time, and can no longer run your muse. Which makes computers in this game largely worthless.

This is you arguing that software is not gameAI. I never held that position, though I can see how you might come to that conclusion from our discussion. Let me state my position clearly now: [b]If it makes tests by itself, it needs stats so we know what to roll for the tests.[/b] Note that this is a blanket rule for all software: realAI and gameAI. Also note that I am not saying that if it has stats, then it is a gameAI. [h1]Jamming Rules[/h1] I feel stupid. Jamming and Direct Control requires the puppet sock augmentation. Seekers don't have the puppet sock augmentation. Our entire argument is moot. [h1]Non argument[/h1]

Quote:
Thermobaric weapons are pretty effective against armored targets , and they are in no way benefitted from impacting the target (I believe that would hinder the dispersal of the aerosol explosive). Plasmaburst weapons, at the temperatures they likely reach, likely ignore most armors and do severe damage regardless. HEAP rounds might be impact weapons, though. I'll give you that. They also don't do as much damage to targets farther away from the explosion as the others do. Note that other than the two I listed above (and fragmentation), no other explosives have armor piercing. So to some degree, they got that right.

Good to know :) Edit: Can you quote me some sources on thermobarics being anti armor? I can't seem to find any. Or is that just in game?

Quote:
As a general rule, asyncs should never get so close to exsurgents that they can even use their sleights on them. Because risk of re-infection is very high (at least before they released the dominant strain trait). If you're close enough to touch an exsurgent with your mind, the exsurgent is close enough to touch you with his.

As a general rule, NO ONE should be close to exsurgents. This sleight is for exsurgents that look normal until...

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 23:11

#23

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:Here you

Lalande21185 wrote:
Here you are saying that all these software are AIs. However, it is obvious that you mean 'real world AI' and not 'game system AI'. To keep these straight I will use the term realAI and gameAI from hereon.

Alright, sounds good.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Here I am saying that only realAIs that make tests need to have stats. I go on to elaborate that the AI for seekers now needs stats as it makes tests (see the next section though). This seems very reasonable. Without stats how will you know what to roll for the tests?

Then we're good. Seekers don't make tests on their own. Either you make the test if you fire them normally, or a jammer makes the tests if they are controlling it instead. Seeker logic code is realAI, but not gameAI. It's a set of simple pursuit algorithms that are factored in as part of your attack roll and all inherent bonuses.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Here you are saying, according to me, anything that is a realAI needs to have stats. That this is not my position. My position is that only realAI that make tests need stats.

I was merely saying that if seeker rounds with simple guidance code require full writeups in your opinion, then all realAI should need full writeups. I was trying to give examples via absurdity.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Here is the problem, and it is mine through poor word choice. As I tried to clarify later, by 'full stat write up' I meant everything needed to make a test. I didn't realize that you were using it to mean 'gameAI'. I apologize for the confusion.

Yes I did. But my core point here is that I do not believe that everything does merit a full writeup. I am of the stance that seekers do not require skill stats.

Lalande21185 wrote:
This is you arguing that software is not gameAI. I never held that position, though I can see how you might come to that conclusion from our discussion. Let me state my position clearly now: [b]If it makes tests by itself, it needs stats so we know what to roll for the tests.[/b] Note that this is a blanket rule for all software: realAI and gameAI. Also note that I am not saying that if it has stats, then it is a gameAI.

Okay, fair enough. I can concede that point. But again, my stance is that the seeker does not require skill writeups, because it does not make tests on its own. Either the firer or the jammer makes all tests. [h1]Jamming Rules[/h1]

Lalande21185 wrote:
I feel stupid. Jamming and Direct Control requires the puppet sock augmentation. Seekers don't have the puppet sock augmentation. Our entire argument is moot.

Actually, this is incorrect. Puppet sock augmentation is only required for anything that has a brain, whether a synthmorph or a biomorph. If you look through the info in the books, you'll find that robots have no such puppet sock, nor are vehicles ever mentioned to have puppet socks. A puppet sock is a specific implant for overriding a living or cybernetic brain's control over their body. Also note that the distinction between shells is blurry, and the definition of shells is as well. A synthmorph is a shell with a cyberbrain, capable of being used as a body by humans. A vehicle is a shell capable of transporting passengers (including its driver). A robot is a shell designed to be piloted by a gameAI. But nothing of note discusses things that might not fit in any of these categories, or might fit in a mixture of them... ... and Seekers fall under none of these categories. [h1]Non argument[/h1]

Lalande21185 wrote:
Good to know :) Edit: Can you quote me some sources on thermobarics being anti armor? I can't seem to find any. Or is that just in game?

[url=http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs... is an Australian Department of Defense paper[/url] showcasing that not only is personal body armor worthless against a thermobaric weapon, it may in fact [b]amplify the effects of the explosion on the intended target[/b]. This implies that if you are wearing armor, you are in fact [i]more vulnerable[/i] than if you were not. So Eclipse Phase [i]underplays[/i] the potency of thermobaric weapons against armor.

Lalande21185 wrote:
As a general rule, NO ONE should be close to exsurgents. This sleight is for exsurgents that look normal until...

I don't disagree, but asyncs are more vulnerable. They are more likely to go psychotic, more likely to fail infection tests, and should an exsurgent take them over... well, they already have psychic powers....

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2013-08-08 23:39

#24

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Since we basically agree on AI...

Decivre wrote:
Actually, this is incorrect. Puppet sock augmentation is only required for anything that has a brain, whether a synthmorph or a biomorph. If you look through the info in the books, you'll find that robots have no such puppet sock, nor are vehicles ever mentioned to have puppet socks. A puppet sock is a specific implant for overriding a living or cybernetic brain's control over their body.

Robots and vehicles come with the puppet sock augmentation. From p. 343 of Eclipse Phase, under the heading Robots and Vehicles: "as a synthetic morph by adding a cyberbrain system (p. 300). Each of the shells listed here comes with a puppet sock (p. 307) for remote-control operation."

Quote:
Also note that the distinction between shells is blurry, and the definition of shells is as well. A synthmorph is a shell with a cyberbrain, capable of being used as a body by humans. A vehicle is a shell capable of transporting passengers (including its driver). A robot is a shell designed to be piloted by a gameAI. Seekers fall under none of these categories.

This is absolutely correct. Seekers are ammunition.

Quote:
url=http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs... is an Australian Department of Defense paper[/url] showcasing that not only is personal body armor worthless against a thermobaric weapon, it may in fact [b]amplify the effects of the explosion on the intended target[/b]. This implies that if you are wearing armor, you are in fact [i]more vulnerable[/i] than if you were not. So Eclipse Phase [i]underplays[/i] the potency of thermobaric weapons against armor.

There is a quote about being divided by a common language :) By armor in anti-armor of course I meant "The armored vehicles of an army", not a "A defensive covering worn to protect the body against weapons." For future reference: Anti-material = destroys building and objects Anti-armor = destroys vehicles, though I guess they are using the term anti-tank now. Anti-personnel = kills people

Quote:
I don't disagree, but asyncs are more vulnerable. They are more likely to go psychotic, more likely to fail infection tests, and should an exsurgent take them over... well, they already have psychic powers....

Which is exactly why they need a way to detect exsurgents! :) Also note that the new sleight can detect if a synthmorph or the like is infected as well.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 00:09

#25

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:Robots and

Lalande21185 wrote:
Robots and vehicles come with the puppet sock augmentation. From p. 343 of Eclipse Phase, under the heading Robots and Vehicles: "as a synthetic morph by adding a cyberbrain system (p. 300). Each of the shells listed here comes with a puppet sock (p. 307) for remote-control operation."

Well, if the devs have written that you can jam seekers, then the implication is that seekers have a puppet sock. Though I would argue that seeker control is something regulated by the seeker weapon, not the actual seeker itself. Maybe the smartlink system includes puppet sock integration? This is not without some degree of precedence. Plenty of other devices and such have sensors and control systems that would only be useful if they could be controlled or jammed. Like fractal gloves.

Lalande21185 wrote:
There is a quote about being divided by a common language :) By armor in anti-armor of course I meant "The armored vehicles of an army", not a "A defensive covering worn to protect the body against weapons." For future reference: Anti-material = destroys building and objects Anti-armor = destroys vehicles, though I guess they are using the term anti-tank now. Anti-personnel = kills people

Then thermobaric weapons would be anti-material and anti-personnel.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Which is exactly why they need a way to detect exsurgents! :) Also note that the new sleight can detect if a synthmorph or the like is infected as well.

Not always. It cannot detect things infected with the digital virus (which a synthmorph can be infected with), nor does it detect targets that have been infected with a basilisk hack or AoK hack. So its use is only limited to the two broadest types of the exsurgent virus. Plus, it [i]still[/i] might not detect synthmorphs exsurgents. The core book explicitly states "Synthmorphs, bots, and vehicles may not be targeted by psi sleights, as they lack biological brains." on page 221. Even if the writeup speaks of the test as a success test (which only occurs in non-targeted sleights), the sleight also talks about choosing a target for the sleight. But as a GM, I would allow it, stipulating that the sleight targets the virus, not the synthmorph itself.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 01:16

#26

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Decivre wrote:Well, if the

Decivre wrote:
Well, if the devs have written that you can jam seekers, then the implication is that seekers have a puppet sock.

I think that this is a mistake, myself. Most likely it is an artifact from an older version of the rules that got left in by accident. Ironically, I was the guy arguing that the 'must have a puppet sock' restriction be removed from the Shell Control rules.

Quote:
Though I would argue that seeker control is something regulated by the seeker weapon, not the actual seeker itself.

I agree completely. This was my 'fix' to the rules actually.

Quote:
Maybe the smartlink system includes puppet sock integration?

I don't think that a puppet sock is necessary to control a smartlink weapon remotely. The puppet sock is needed only for the Shell Control rules, such as Direct Control and Jamming, not general remote control. If you don't need the full rules (like I maintain that the seekers don't), then you don't need a puppet sock, and you control them by making skill tests. Example: You want to turn on an ecto wirelessly from across the room and have it run a program? That doesn't require a puppet sock, you just make an (automatically successful because it is so simple and you are not under stress) Interfacing test.

Quote:
This is not without some degree of precedence. Plenty of other devices and such have sensors and control systems that would only be useful if they could be controlled or jammed. Like fractal gloves.

Again I would say that a puppet sock is not necessary for these. They don't really need the full shell control rules (collisions, chase speeds, etc.), so they don't need puppet socks. To state things more directly: If you are not controlling a vehicle/robot/biodrone/morph then you don't need to use a puppet sock: you just control it using a relevant skill (which is usually interfacing, though in other cases different skill's may be more suitable, such as programming or a weapon skill). Much simpler and faster in play, especially since the Shell Control rules are kind of clunky.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 05:04

#27

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:I think

Lalande21185 wrote:
I think that this is a mistake, myself. Most likely it is an artifact from an older version of the rules that got left in by accident. Ironically, I was the guy arguing that the 'must have a puppet sock' restriction be removed from the Shell Control rules.

I personally like the implication, myself. There's something very interesting about the idea of becoming the missile and piloting it in ways that conventional guidance wouldn't allow. I'm actually hoping this was intentional. Maybe they'll clarify in the core book, rather than getting rid of it.

Lalande21185 wrote:
I don't think that a puppet sock is necessary to control a smartlink weapon remotely. The puppet sock is needed only for the Shell Control rules, such as Direct Control and Jamming, not general remote control. If you don't need the full rules (like I maintain that the seekers don't), then you don't need a puppet sock, and you control them by making skill tests. Example: You want to turn on an ecto wirelessly from across the room and have it run a program? That doesn't require a puppet sock, you just make an (automatically successful because it is so simple and you are not under stress) Interfacing test.

Again, this isn't the same in context. Jamming is meant to give the user a more intuitive means of firing the seeker, in the same way that jamming allows you to control a vehicle in a more intuitive manner. A terrible driver can jam a car instead, and control it as though it was their own body, using their Freerunning skills rather than their Piloting skills. In this case, jamming allows someone to use a seeker weapon without actually having a significant amount of skill with seekers, using the Flight skill rather than the Seekers skill. That said, the rules actually do state that remote control requires a puppet sock. As it says on page 196 of the core book, "Any shell (or biomorph) with a puppet sock (also included with all cyberbrains) may be remote controlled, either by a character or a remote AI." Direct Control and Jamming have the same requirements. This is why I say this whole thing just needs clarification more than anything.

Lalande21185 wrote:
Again I would say that a puppet sock is not necessary for these. They don't really need the full shell control rules (collisions, chase speeds, etc.), so they don't need puppet socks. To state things more directly: If you are not controlling a vehicle/robot/biodrone/morph then you don't need to use a puppet sock: you just control it using a relevant skill (which is usually interfacing, though in other cases different skill's may be more suitable, such as programming or a weapon skill). Much simpler and faster in play, especially since the Shell Control rules are kind of clunky.

This seems more confusing than melding the seeker mechanics with the jamming rules. Now, you've created some bizarre scenario where there's now two sets of rules: one for direct control and jamming, and one for totally-not-direct-control-or-jamming-even-though-it-works-largely-the-same-way-and-there's-no-cohesive-rules-defining-it. I don't see why this is necessary. If you assume the normal Direct Control and Jamming rules, it allows someone to remote control with the Seeker skill, or jam with the Flight skill. I don't see why this is so terrible to you.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 09:50

#28

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

I do plan to finish the Playing Characters chapter someday, kif.

Quote:
Again, this isn't the same in context. Jamming is meant to give the user a more intuitive means of firing the seeker, in the same way that jamming allows you to control a vehicle in a more intuitive manner. A terrible driver can jam a car instead, and control it as though it was their own body, using their Freerunning skills rather than their Piloting skills. In this case, jamming allows someone to use a seeker weapon without actually having a significant amount of skill with seekers, using the Flight skill rather than the Seekers skill.

You still need to make a seeker weapon skill test to attack though as jamming uses normal weapon skills. So you are not really gaining anything except rules overhead and (questionably) a skills substitution for just moving the seeker.

Quote:
That said, the rules actually do state that remote control requires a puppet sock. As it says on page 196 of the core book, "Any shell (or biomorph) with a puppet sock (also included with all cyberbrains) may be remote controlled, either by a character or a remote AI." Direct Control and Jamming have the same requirements.

Yes. So no jamming (or direct controlling) seekers unless you shell out for a puppet sock (and rule that they work/fit in seekers).

Quote:
This seems more confusing than melding the seeker mechanics with the jamming rules. Now, you've created some bizarre scenario where there's now two sets of rules: one for direct control and jamming, and one for totally-not-direct-control-or-jamming-even-though-it-works-largely-the-same-way-and-there's-no-cohesive-rules-defining-it. I don't see why this is necessary.

There was always two sets of rules. Normal attack rules and the Shell Control rules. The control of a seeker in flight is part of the Seeker Weapon skill. You are massively over-complicating things by trying to control seekers with the jamming rules. Have you tried using the Jamming rules? Lets go through a couple of examples. Jamming and non-jamming. Example 1: A guy wants to shoot someone with a seeker (Jamming)

Spoiler: Highlight to view

Note: The seeker round in question has been fitted with a puppet sock that the GM has generously ruled will fit on a seeker, that it can use the seekers own wireless radio, and will only reduce the payload by -1d10. GM: Hunk, you spent a point of moxie to go first so your up. Hunk: I want to shoot the novacrabs with my seeker launcher before they scatter. I am going to jam the seeker because I don't have the seeker skill. GM: Okay. You are going to need a complex action to fire the weapon and another complex action to initiate jamming, and then more actions to actually have the missile do something. Hunk: That's three complex actions to fire a seeker? GM: Correct. Unless you just want the missile to move or something. Hunk: Good thing I have multitasking. GM: Since you are jamming it you don't need to make a seeker weapon test? Yes. Wait, You have a -60 to the test because you are jamming? No you do need to make the test. Hunk: What if I jam the missile after it has been fired. GM: Good question... um... the book doesn't really say how long a seeker can stay in the air or anything like that. Um... I am going to rule that it stays in the air only for the complex action it is fired, then it runs out of fuel. Um... do you have extra actions from multi-tasking or mental speed? Hunk: Multitasking. GM: That's in parallel, so I will say that you can do it. And you don't need to roll for firing the seeker. That is two of your complex actions used up. Hunk: So now I am going to pilot the seeker into the group of novacrabs. That is a quick action. My flight skill is 80. Do I get my bonus from my smartlink? GM: You are just flying up to them. No you don't. Hunk: I want to fly up to them and explode. GM: That isn't a flight test. That is a seeker weapon test. Hunk: What? No it is a flight test. I am moving up to them as a quick action and exploding as another quick action. GM: Which is an attack. By the rules, when jamming: "Use the teleoperator’s normal Combat skills for all combat tests." The seeker weapons skill is for attacking with seekers. So you use the seeker weapon skill. Hunk: That doesn't seem right. GM: Tough. Hunk: Okay, what if instead of exploding I ram into one of them, the collision will destroy the seeker and cause it to explode? GM: Umm.. maybe. What kind of attack would that be? Hunk: Flight skill? GM: Or maybe it is Unarmed? Or maybe it is still Seeker Weapons, you are attacking with a seeker after all. Um... It doesn't really say. But since you are jamming, you treat it as your own body, um... I am going to say that takes an unarmed attack action. And you are going to need to make a flight test because you are moving so fast. [Editors note: I would have made him make a seeker weapon test anyways] Hunk: Really. GM: Yes seekers move incredibly fast, at this range you have only microseconds to respond. You are going to have to make a flight test. Hunk: Okay. 40 out of 80 for my flight roll and a 15 out of 40 for my attack roll. That is pretty low, I am going to upgrade to a critical. GM: The novacrab is going to Fray with his full fray. It gets a 40 out of 60, and it spends a point of moxie to upgrade as well. You miss. Hunk: Wait. It gets it's full fray? But I am in a super-fast seeker. GM: But you are trying to ram into him. That is a melee attack, so he gets his full fray. That is what the rules state. Hunk: I still explode right. GM: Ahh... I have no clue. Maybe? You missed on a ramming attack and the damage was going to cause you to explode rather than making a seeker weapon test, so I guess no? Hunk: Can I use a quick action to trigger the explosive as I go past. GM: No, that would be a complex action attack using the seeker weapon skill. Just like throwing a grenade and wirelessly triggering it at the right moment is a throwing skill complex action. So your seeker sails harmless past. And plows into the rock on the other side of the ridge and explodes. You are dumped taking 3 SV. Hunk: Damn, okay for my next shot. Same thing right? GM: Wait, what? Hunk: My seeker rifle is SA. I get two attacks per complex action. GM: But jamming took a complex action to initiate... um... I guess you fire using the seeker weapon skill with a -60 penalty? Hunk: Even though I am not jamming anymore? GM: No you were operating in parallel. So you were still controlling the seeker when you fired the second shot. -60 penalty. Hunk: I can't hit then. I guess I don't shoot. ... Hunk: You know some of the ruling you made were pretty questionable. GM: I know, the book doesn't really cover controlling seekers as shells very well. I probably shouldn't have allowed you to put a puppet sock on it.

Example 2: A guy wants to shoot someone with a seeker (non-jamming)

Spoiler: Highlight to view

GM: Hunk, you spent a point of moxie to go first so your up. Hunk: I want to shoot the novacrabs with my seeker launcher before they scatter. I am going to aim and use my smartlink which give me +20 because I have a homing seeker. I am defaulting to my coordination of 20 and you said a -10 range penalty?. So I have a 40 to hit. I roll a 40. I am going to upgrade that with moxie. GM: Okay you wirelessly guide the seeker into the lead novacrab. They can't fray, so roll damage...

The entire point I am trying to make here is: I think the rules for jamming a seeker using the SHELL JAMMING RULES are clunky, weird, and unwieldy. Just use the normal rules. Fast, simple, and well supported.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 11:09

#29

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:You still

Lalande21185 wrote:
You still need to make a seeker weapon skill test to attack though as jamming uses normal weapon skills. So you are not really gaining anything except rules overhead and (questionably) a skills substitution for just moving the seeker.

Why would you need to make a seeker weapon skill? You are flying as physically close as you can to a target, and detonating your body. That doesn't seem like it would require anything more than your flight skill. Or are you arguing that suicide vests require the seeker skill as well?

Lalande21185 wrote:
Yes. So no jamming (or direct controlling) seekers unless you shell out for a puppet sock (and rule that they work/fit in seekers).

Or, unless seekers (or smartlink) come with such technology inherently built in.

Lalande21185 wrote:
There was always two sets of rules. Normal attack rules and the Shell Control rules. The control of a seeker in flight is part of the Seeker Weapon skill. You are massively over-complicating things by trying to control seekers with the jamming rules. Have you tried using the Jamming rules? Lets go through a couple of examples. Jamming and non-jamming. Example 1: A guy wants to shoot someone with a seeker (Jamming)
Spoiler: Highlight to view
Note: The seeker round in question has been fitted with a puppet sock that the GM has generously ruled will fit on a seeker, that it can use the seekers own wireless radio, and will only reduce the payload by -1d10. GM: Hunk, you spent a point of moxie to go first so your up. Hunk: I want to shoot the novacrabs with my seeker launcher before they scatter. I am going to jam the seeker because I don't have the seeker skill. GM: Okay. You are going to need a complex action to fire the weapon and another complex action to initiate jamming, and then more actions to actually have the missile do something. Hunk: That's three complex actions to fire a seeker? GM: Correct. Unless you just want the missile to move or something. Hunk: Good thing I have multitasking. GM: Since you are jamming it you don't need to make a seeker weapon test? Yes. Wait, You have a -60 to the test because you are jamming? No you do need to make the test. Hunk: What if I jam the missile after it has been fired. GM: Good question... um... the book doesn't really say how long a seeker can stay in the air or anything like that. Um... I am going to rule that it stays in the air only for the complex action it is fired, then it runs out of fuel. Um... do you have extra actions from multi-tasking or mental speed? Hunk: Multitasking. GM: That's in parallel, so I will say that you can do it. And you don't need to roll for firing the seeker. That is two of your complex actions used up. Hunk: So now I am going to pilot the seeker into the group of novacrabs. That is a quick action. My flight skill is 80. Do I get my bonus from my smartlink? GM: You are just flying up to them. No you don't. Hunk: I want to fly up to them and explode. GM: That isn't a flight test. That is a seeker weapon test. Hunk: What? No it is a flight test. I am moving up to them as a quick action and exploding as another quick action. GM: Which is an attack. By the rules, when jamming: "Use the teleoperator’s normal Combat skills for all combat tests." The seeker weapons skill is for attacking with seekers. So you use the seeker weapon skill. Hunk: That doesn't seem right. GM: Tough. Hunk: Okay, what if instead of exploding I ram into one of them, the collision will destroy the seeker and cause it to explode? GM: Umm.. maybe. What kind of attack would that be? Hunk: Flight skill? GM: Or maybe it is Unarmed? Or maybe it is still Seeker Weapons, you are attacking with a seeker after all. Um... It doesn't really say. But since you are jamming, you treat it as your own body, um... I am going to say that takes an unarmed attack action. And you are going to need to make a flight test because you are moving so fast. [Editors note: I would have made him make a seeker weapon test anyways] Hunk: Really. GM: Yes seekers move incredibly fast, at this range you have only microseconds to respond. You are going to have to make a flight test. Hunk: Okay. 40 out of 80 for my flight roll and a 15 out of 40 for my attack roll. That is pretty low, I am going to upgrade to a critical. GM: The novacrab is going to Fray with his full fray. It gets a 40 out of 60, and it spends a point of moxie to upgrade as well. You miss. Hunk: Wait. It gets it's full fray? But I am in a super-fast seeker. GM: But you are trying to ram into him. That is a melee attack, so he gets his full fray. That is what the rules state. Hunk: I still explode right. GM: Ahh... I have no clue. Maybe? You missed on a ramming attack and the damage was going to cause you to explode rather than making a seeker weapon test, so I guess no? Hunk: Can I use a quick action to trigger the explosive as I go past. GM: No, that would be a complex action attack using the seeker weapon skill. Just like throwing a grenade and wirelessly triggering it at the right moment is a throwing skill complex action. So your seeker sails harmless past. And plows into the rock on the other side of the ridge and explodes. You are dumped taking 3 SV. Hunk: Damn, okay for my next shot. Same thing right? GM: Wait, what? Hunk: My seeker rifle is SA. I get two attacks per complex action. GM: But jamming took a complex action to initiate... um... I guess you fire using the seeker weapon skill with a -60 penalty? Hunk: Even though I am not jamming anymore? GM: No you were operating in parallel. So you were still controlling the seeker when you fired the second shot. -60 penalty. Hunk: I can't hit then. I guess I don't shoot. ... Hunk: You know some of the ruling you made were pretty questionable. GM: I know, the book doesn't really cover controlling seekers as shells very well. I probably shouldn't have allowed you to put a puppet sock on it.
Example 2: A guy wants to shoot someone with a seeker (non-jamming)
Spoiler: Highlight to view
GM: Hunk, you spent a point of moxie to go first so your up. Hunk: I want to shoot the novacrabs with my seeker launcher before they scatter. I am going to aim and use my smartlink which give me +20 because I have a homing seeker. I am defaulting to my coordination of 20 and you said a -10 range penalty?. So I have a 40 to hit. I roll a 40. I am going to upgrade that with moxie. GM: Okay you wirelessly guide the seeker into the lead novacrab. They can't fray, so roll damage...
The entire point I am trying to make here is: I think the rules for jamming a seeker using the SHELL JAMMING RULES are clunky, weird, and unwieldy. Just use the normal rules. Fast, simple, and well supported.

The problem is you are assuming three things here: [list=1][*]That jammers should fire the seeker they are jamming in the first place (as a smartlink weapon, you can have your muse fire it, and instead merely hold it in place and proceed to jam it). [*]That jamming is a smart idea if all you're doing is a direct attack (the examples they give in the book are for unorthodox uses, such as exploring and hunting for a target). I don't think anyone would dare to risk 1d10 stress every shot just for a standard attack, even if it's the only option they have due to lack of seeker skills. [*]That attacks only take a single action turn to get to their target. The setting is a big mash-up of abstractions, and I can't see many man-portable seeker weapons capable of achieving 7500 miles per hour in atmosphere (railgun rounds don't travel that fast). This becomes especially true when certain weapon ranges become line of sight in vacuum; just because I can spot a target 30,000 kilometers away does not mean my pistol round hits that target in 3 seconds, achieving 2.2 million miles per hour. That's just absurd.[/list] It shouldn't be particularly hard to handle. Seekers have a maximum distance of 20 kilometers, so assume that they run out of gas when they travel that far regardless of how fast. No skill roll is necessary for the seeker to fire (pushing a button doesn't require a skill test), so have your muse fire the weapon while you sit your body in an aiming position and jam into the missile proper (tell her to fire in 3 seconds, so you have complete control without the need for extra actions). No weapon skill is necessary because you aren't taking a direct combat action per se; you're doing the equivalent of walking as close to someone as possible and detonating a bomb vest. Flight opposed by Fray decides how close you get, use scatter rules to determine by how far you miss by. As I said before, I feel you are overthinking this.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 13:16

#30

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Lets stop and clarify our postitions

Okay, something is wrong: you are pointing out the flaws and vagaries of the combined weapon/jamming system as arguments against my position, which is that the combined weapon/jamming system is full of flaws and vagaries. We have got our wires crossed somewhere. I thought your position was: [b]Combining the rules into a horrible hybrid mishmash is a good thing and what we should be doing.[/b] Which is what I was arguing against. But reading your latest post carefully, what you are actually arguing is more like: [b]When jamming seekers, completely forget the fact that the seekers are weapons. Create a virtual seeker robot and then use the shell rules as written. This is superior to using the seeker weapon skill.[/b] Is that a good statement of your position? For clarity, my position is: [b]Jamming seekers is a bad idea as it creates unnecessary complexity and ambiguity (and is impossible by the rules). Seekers are weapons and should use the weapon rules.[/b]

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Sat, 2013-08-10 10:57

#31

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Not really a rant, but the best I could do.

[b]User's Guide to Forks[/b]: I now have Katatonia's 'My Twin' stuck in my head. So thanks for that transhuman. Other than that I have no problem with this section, other than the merging different ego's rules might be able to be abused. But they are optional, so I am not worried about it. Plus they say they are experimental, so expect unexpected consequences if you dare to use them. [b]Indenture's and Infugees[/b] This section is pretty decent. Contract Negotiations sidebar: There is a misplaced sentence here: "Some rimwared habs are much more welcoming of new..." belongs at the end of the previous paragraph. [b]Meet Your Muse[/b] Five words: Cognito, the Cognite Mascot. Awesome. Typo: "Muses now how to keep others outs of your private inbox." [b] Maximize your Muse[/b] Okay, another bad section because the authors didn't understand the system or didn't think things through. Muse Skills...

Quote:
Time can be dilated up to 60 times slower than normal, which would give you and your muse plenty of time for therapy.

This is absolutely horrible and should not be here. Sure the core rulebook says that time could be dilated by this amount, but it doesn't say anything about how difficult it is. This makes it seem easy to get 60x time dilation. Breaks the setting. Breaks the system. Let me give an example. You have an informorph. You have a time dilated simulspace. Remember those time frames for programming upgrades and eidolons and stuff. Yeah, 5.8 seconds* later you are a god machine. *I made this number up. My rule of thumb: 3x is fine. Most normal infomorphs run at this speed already 6x is not for long term use. 9x is pushing it. Not for use for more than an hour or so. 12x is the short term safe limit. Here you start taking mental damage from running in a simulspace. 60x cutting edge found only at universities and hyper-corp projects. You go insane within dilated seconds. Further it is limited only to simulating a featureless white room. Edit: I missed a level and so the others were 3 off. Sorry about the confusion. Technically, a character can't use a complementary skill to aid another character. Use teamwork instead (it give the same bonus and prevents weird situations). Any test where a complementary skill from another character can used should also be able to be helped by teamwork. Profession: Gunsmith and Profession: Armorer cannot do what this section says they can. That requires the active skill, Hardware: Armorer. The professions would be complementary skills or allow someone to make a teamwork test. New psychosurgical techniques: Typo: There are three techniques in this section, not two. Playing Characters (65/75 = 86.6% done)

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 14:01

#32

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:Okay,

Lalande21185 wrote:
Okay, something is wrong: you are pointing out the flaws and vagaries of the combined weapon/jamming system as arguments against my position, which is that the combined weapon/jamming system is full of flaws and vagaries. We have got our wires crossed somewhere. I thought your position was: [b]Combining the rules into a horrible hybrid mishmash is a good thing and what we should be doing.[/b] Which is what I was arguing against. But reading your latest post carefully, what you are actually arguing is more like: [b]When jamming seekers, completely forget the fact that the seekers are weapons. Create a virtual seeker robot and then use the shell rules as written. This is superior to using the seeker weapon skill.[/b] Is that a good statement of your position?

Sound about right. A jammed vehicle is, for all intents and purposes, treated as your own body while it is jammed. You can consider the seeker a weapon, but in that context you have to consider yourself a flying bomb, not a person shooting seekers.

Lalande21185 wrote:
For clarity, my position is: [b]Jamming seekers is a bad idea as it creates unnecessary complexity and ambiguity (and is impossible by the rules). Seekers are weapons and should use the weapon rules.[/b]

If anything, I think the problem comes with the puppet sock. Puppet socks make sense as a concept because they create the ability to remotely control things like people, or devices that couldn't otherwise be controlled. But its a concept in a universe where [i]everything interfaces wirelessly[/i]. And I feel the devs made an error by locking the jamming and direct control rules to the puppet sock, because it makes this oddball issue where it seems like I can't directly control anything unless it is explicitly listed as having this device. Which is odd, because the setting explicitly discusses things like turning of your lights and controlling cameras via wireless control, but never mentions a puppet sock when discussing these things. Including seekers. You and I just took two different routes when faced with this information. I came to the conclusion that most devices, unless it does not make sense, are designed for wireless interfacing (and therefore jamming). You came to the conclusion that most devices are NOT designed for these things, because they don't mention a puppet sock. Yours is better supported by the rules, mine is better supported by the fluff.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 16:27

#33

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Conflicting rules interpretations

Decivre wrote:
You and I just took two different routes when faced with this information. I came to the conclusion that most devices, unless it does not make sense, are designed for wireless interfacing (and therefore jamming). You came to the conclusion that most devices are NOT designed for these things, because they don't mention a puppet sock. Yours is better supported by the rules, mine is better supported by the fluff.

This seems to get to the heart of the matter, though I disagree slightly. Let me try and elaborate how I interpreted the rules. I believe that there are multiple levels of wireless interfacing for remote control. We will call them genRemControl and shellRemControl to keep everything clear. [b]genRemControl[/b] is for when you are controlling everything that doesn't have specific rules. This level is only implied in the rules but it's existence makes sense (to me at least) from both a fluff and mechanical perspective. At this level of control, things are handled as a skill tests without any unique rules. Usually this level of control uses the interfacing skill, but for certain tasks other skills may be used (in the case under consideration, Seeker Weapons). [b]shellRemControl[/b] is for handling shells with puppet socks. It is a more detailed and specific set of rules. If something is shellRemControlled then it is not genRemControllable. In contrast, your interpretation recognizes only one level of control through wireless interfacing, equivalent to my shellRemControl. So our argument is essentially as follows: 1. I, being obsessively mechanistic, don't like the undefined transition from the genRemControl rules to the shellRemControl rules that Transhuman implies. 2. You, not interpreting the rules to have genRemControl, can't see why I don't want to let seekers be remote controlled. 2a. You, being more relaxed, can't see why I dislike the undefined transition so much. 3. I, interpreting the rules to have genRemControl, can't see why you want to add all the shell rules when, to me, the genRemControl rules work fine for seekers. 4. I, not understanding that you don't interpret remote control on two levels, mistakenly think you are arguing both genRemControl and shellRemControl should be combined into horribleRemControl, when that was never really your position. Does this seem correct?

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Fri, 2013-08-09 18:00

#34

nerdnumber1 nerdnumber1's picture

I think Lalande21185 is more

I think Lalande21185 is more concerned with rules consistency than the wold fluff. Putting rules for controlling seekers directly as long as you explicitly state that, while similar to jamming in concept, it uses an alternative, explicitly described rule-set mechanically, would likely be a lot more comfortable. If you just say "jamming", then (to a one with a strict interpretation of rules) that implies that all rules that are associated with jammed shells apply unless otherwise stated, making the rules appear inconsistent even if a more liberal reading of the rules would avoid such assumptions. As for simulspace time acceleration, I tended toward removing limits. If you want to use psychosurgery at all, you need easy access to time acceleration. With 60x acceleration, you can do a one-week task action in 2.8 hours. Since you need a week per +10 skill imprint that degrades by 10 each day, unless you are accelerated, psychosurgery is of limited use. Since the book describes psychosurgery as a useful tool used every day to stretch leisure time, I doubt it is particularly maddening in most circumstances. (I still have trouble seeing what makes it stressful for psychosurgery. I could see a continuity-test for coming out of time acceleration/deceleration as the time difference might be jarring, but as long as the simulation isn't dropping bits or otherwise making bad shortcuts it seems like things should be indistinguishable from non-accelerated simulspace).

Sat, 2013-08-10 08:24

#35

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:This seems

Lalande21185 wrote:
This seems to get to the heart of the matter, though I disagree slightly. Let me try and elaborate how I interpreted the rules. I believe that there are multiple levels of wireless interfacing for remote control. We will call them genRemControl and shellRemControl to keep everything clear. [b]genRemControl[/b] is for when you are controlling everything that doesn't have specific rules. This level is only implied in the rules but it's existence makes sense (to me at least) from both a fluff and mechanical perspective. At this level of control, things are handled as a skill tests without any unique rules. Usually this level of control uses the interfacing skill, but for certain tasks other skills may be used (in the case under consideration, Seeker Weapons). [b]shellRemControl[/b] is for handling shells with puppet socks. It is a more detailed and specific set of rules. If something is shellRemControlled then it is not genRemControllable. In contrast, your interpretation recognizes only one level of control through wireless interfacing, equivalent to my shellRemControl.

Well, sort of. I recognize multiple layers of remote control, but don't see why we need to have more than one way to handle it if they are functionally identical. My problem with your interpretation is that it is needlessly complex. genRemControl and shellRemControl work functionally identical when dealing with the Direct Control mechanics (you handle it with your piloting skill if its a vehicle, your weapon skill if its a weapon, interfacing if there is no relevant skill). So to that end, I have no qualms with just considering it the same to simplify. Furthermore, I think the idea that a puppet sock must be listed for anything to be controlled or jammed is a bit obtuse. I was under the impression that the only time they'd ever list the puppet sock in the info was when either an ego or a gameAI was involved, because I thought the puppet sock was basically a mind-override allowing you to take control if there's a brain or automated intelligence that normally controls it. Otherwise, I just assumed that the ability was [i]implied[/i] if the device was complex enough (obviously an ancient pistol isn't going to be direct controlled or jammed, but pretty much any weapon with smartlink, and any device with a degree of computerization might as well be).

Lalande21185 wrote:
So our argument is essentially as follows: 1. I, being obsessively mechanistic, don't like the undefined transition from the genRemControl rules to the shellRemControl rules that Transhuman implies. 2. You, not interpreting the rules to have genRemControl, can't see why I don't want to let seekers be remote controlled.

Yes and no. Whether genRemControl exists is irrelevant. My point has been "if it's referenced as possible in the setting, then it should be possible in the game; this is true whether or not the setting contradicts the rules".

Lalande21185 wrote:
2a. You, being more relaxed, can't see why I dislike the undefined transition so much. 3. I, interpreting the rules to have genRemControl, can't see why you want to add all the shell rules when, to me, the genRemControl rules work fine for seekers. 4. I, not understanding that you don't interpret remote control on two levels, mistakenly think you are arguing both genRemControl and shellRemControl should be combined into horribleRemControl, when that was never really your position. Does this seem correct?

It's not so much that I don't see remote control on two levels, it's that I don't see why we have to handle it mechanically on two levels. We already have two functional ways to handle the remote control of a device or machine: Direct Control and Jamming. Those two concepts have philosophical and flavor differences between them; the former is controlling something with a control system, not unlike using any device today, while the latter is taking control of the device in such a way that you and the device become one from your perspective. To me, it makes sense that these two things play out mechanically different, since a person who is talented at controlling a plane with controls may not have the same skillsets as a person who is talented at controlling a plane as if it were their own body. They both use the plane in a fundamentally different way, even if the end-result is that they both fly. So to me they use different rules. But genRemoteControl and Direct Control of shells is not fundamentally different. Much as the latter is akin to controlling something with a remote, the former is as well. So to me, despite any inference in the books that they are different things, these things should be handled in the same manner. I don't see why we need ruleset A (Direct Control), B (Jamming), and C (genRemControl) for controlling things when ruleset A=C... we might as well just have rulesets A and B, then use A when doing anything that would otherwise use C. Furthermore, if the setting says that ruleset B might be relevant for things that would normally be controlled by C, I don't see why we have to mash up B and C to make D... why not just use B and bypass the rest of the noise? Does that clarify my stance?

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sat, 2013-08-10 10:06

#36

Quincey Forder Quincey Forder's picture

ghost in the seeking shell

For me, the weapon: Seeker skill shows the know-how of how keeping track of a target long enough and well enough to "paint" it for the seeker's limited AI to properly identify the target and stay on course once fired. Here's how I'd handle it

example wrote:
Krueger, an infiltrated Direct Action soldier is ordered to shoot down dangerous Barsoomian terrorists before they can reach an orbiting habitat full of honest and lawful upstanding citizens in a stolen shuttle. He picks his seeker launcher, and aims carefully. the range is quickly becoming extreme, and really hard to keep it locked on, when he fires. He rolls his weapons: seeker skill with a -40 difficulty mod. he scores a 38 out of the remaining 39 of his skill. The seeker rises up and hit the target at the last second, straight in the engine.

—

[center] Q U I N C E Y ^_*_^ F O R D E R [/center] Remember The Cant! [img]http://tinyurl.com/h8azy78[/img] [img]http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg205/tachistarfire/theeye_fanzine_us...

Sat, 2013-08-10 11:03

#37

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Response to nerdnumber1

nerdnumber1 wrote:
I think Lalande21185 is more concerned with rules consistency than the wold fluff. Putting rules for controlling seekers directly as long as you explicitly state that, while similar to jamming in concept, it uses an alternative, explicitly described rule-set mechanically, would likely be a lot more comfortable. If you just say "jamming", then (to a one with a strict interpretation of rules) that implies that all rules that are associated with jammed shells apply unless otherwise stated, making the rules appear inconsistent even if a more liberal reading of the rules would avoid such assumptions.

This is correct.

Quote:
As for simulspace time acceleration, I tended toward removing limits. If you want to use psychosurgery at all, you need easy access to time acceleration. With 60x acceleration, you can do a one-week task action in 2.8 hours.

Your numbers seem off. The correct formula for determining how long a task takes in hours is: number of days * 8 hours a day * speed and success reduction factor / acceleration factor. So for a one week (7 days) timeframe at 60x it will take between 56 minutes and 5.6 minutes. At only 3x the same task will take between 18 hours and 1.8 hours. Which is not long.

Quote:
Since you need a week per +10 skill imprint that degrades by 10 each day, unless you are accelerated, psychosurgery is of limited use.

Yes but you don't need 60x acceleration. 3x as noted above works perfectly fine.

Quote:
Since the book describes psychosurgery as a useful tool used every day to stretch leisure time, I doubt it is particularly maddening in most circumstances.

I think you mean 'time acceleration'. Note that in my house rules, that 3x is perfectly safe for long term use and triples your leisure time. And 6x is fine for... wait. It looks like I missed a level. Sorry, let me go back and correct it. There, hopefully that makes more sense now.

Quote:
(I still have trouble seeing what makes it stressful for psychosurgery. I could see a continuity-test for coming out of time acceleration/deceleration as the time difference might be jarring, but as long as the simulation isn't dropping bits or otherwise making bad shortcuts it seems like things should be indistinguishable from non-accelerated simulspace).

I though the stress was from people cutting into your brain to make changes, not the simulspace?

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Sat, 2013-08-10 11:20

#38

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Yes

Decivre wrote:
Well, sort of. I recognize multiple layers of remote control, but don't see why we need to have more than one way to handle it if they are functionally identical.

In principle, I agree completely.

Quote:
My problem with your interpretation is that it is needlessly complex. genRemControl and shellRemControl work functionally identical when dealing with the Direct Control mechanics (you handle it with your piloting skill if its a vehicle, your weapon skill if its a weapon, interfacing if there is no relevant skill). So to that end, I have no qualms with just considering it the same to simplify.

Again I agree in principled. To me, having the genRemControl and shellRemControl [b]was[/b] the simple solution as compared to making things fit with the ShellRemCon rules. Which is of course a value judgement.

Quote:
Furthermore, I think the idea that a puppet sock must be listed for anything to be controlled or jammed is a bit obtuse. I was under the impression that the only time they'd ever list the puppet sock in the info was when either an ego or a gameAI was involved, because I thought the puppet sock was basically a mind-override allowing you to take control if there's a brain or automated intelligence that normally controls it. Otherwise, I just assumed that the ability was implied if the device was complex enough (obviously an ancient pistol isn't going to be direct controlled or jammed, but pretty much any weapon with smartlink, and any device with a degree of computerization might as well be).

Right. This is why I have genRemControl rules. So things like requiring the puppet sock don't bother me.

Quote:
Yes and no. Whether genRemControl exists is irrelevant. My point has been "if it's referenced as possible in the setting, then it should be possible in the game; this is true whether or not the setting contradicts the rules"

Again I agree mostly. I think we just took narratively what we wanted and mapped it onto the rules in two different ways.

Quote:
It's not so much that I don't see remote control on two levels, it's that I don't see why we have to handle it mechanically on two levels.

Agree.

Quote:
We already have two functional ways to handle the remote control of a device or machine: Direct Control and Jamming.

This is a point where we disagree, sort of. I think Direct Control is too narrow and linked with the shell rules to handle most control needs that arise narratively. I agree that it [b]should be[/b] functional enough to handle everything.

Quote:
Those two concepts have philosophical and flavor differences between them; the former is controlling something with a control system, not unlike using any device today, while the latter is taking control of the device in such a way that you and the device become one from your perspective. To me, it makes sense that these two things play out mechanically different, since a person who is talented at controlling a plane with controls may not have the same skillsets as a person who is talented at controlling a plane as if it were their own body. They both use the plane in a fundamentally different way, even if the end-result is that they both fly. So to me they use different rules.

Agree again.

Quote:
But genRemoteControl and Direct Control of shells is not fundamentally different.

On a narrative level you are correct. On a mechanical level, Direct Control is slightly different as it was meant exclusively shells (it requires a puppet sock for one thing, also it imposes a -10 penalty, makes you use the shell aptitude caps, etc.).

Quote:
Much as the latter is akin to controlling something with a remote, the former is as well. So to me, despite any inference in the books that they are different things, these things should be handled in the same manner.

...and reading RAW, I concluded that they should be handled separately.

Quote:
I don't see why we need ruleset A (Direct Control), B (Jamming), and C (genRemControl) for controlling things when ruleset A=C... we might as well just have rulesets A and B, then use A when doing anything that would otherwise use C.

I agree in principle, but I don't think that A=C. Though I do think that it should.

Quote:
Furthermore, if the setting says that ruleset B might be relevant for things that would normally be controlled by C, I don't see why we have to mash up B and C to make D... why not just use B and bypass the rest of the noise?

I agree quite strongly that we shouldn't mash up B and C to make D. But as B =/= C, I, as an obsessive mechanistic, need some way to translate B to C. I am not comfortable handwaving it as it leads to weird results if not done correctly. This is why I asked the questions that sparked this whole debate in the first place.

Quote:
Does that clarify my stance?

Yes. It seems our difference lies mostly in 2 areas: 1. I need some (preferably strict) way to translate B to C so I don't get weird results. You are more comfortable with translating things loosely. Unfortunately, there is not much we can do to resolve this. 2. The remote control/direct control rules are poorly written and though we want the same thing to happen narratively (mostly), we are differing in how we are trying to make the rules work. The correct solution is to fix the control/direct control rules. Unfortunately we can't do this either :(

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Sun, 2013-08-11 10:51

#39

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:Again I

Lalande21185 wrote:
Again I agree mostly. I think we just took narratively what we wanted and mapped it onto the rules in two different ways.

Exactly. Our approaches differ mostly in implementation. We both agree to some extent that this should be possible.

Lalande21185 wrote:
This is a point where we disagree, sort of. I think Direct Control is too narrow and linked with the shell rules to handle most control needs that arise narratively. I agree that it [b]should be[/b] functional enough to handle everything. -snip- On a narrative level you are correct. On a mechanical level, Direct Control is slightly different as it was meant exclusively shells (it requires a puppet sock for one thing, also it imposes a -10 penalty, makes you use the shell aptitude caps, etc.).

This is easily handled as being modifiers specifically for using something as complex as a bot, vehicle or synth. Said penalties and modifiers do not count for non-shells.

Lalande21185 wrote:
It seems our difference lies mostly in 2 areas: 1. I need some (preferably strict) way to translate B to C so I don't get weird results. You are more comfortable with translating things loosely. Unfortunately, there is not much we can do to resolve this. 2. The remote control/direct control rules are poorly written and though we want the same thing to happen narratively (mostly), we are differing in how we are trying to make the rules work. The correct solution is to fix the control/direct control rules. Unfortunately we can't do this either :(

Fair enough. I can agree to these things.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sun, 2013-08-11 17:14

#40

nerdnumber1 nerdnumber1's picture

I calculated time accelerated

I calculated time accelerated task actions as taking [normal task action time period]/[time acceleration factor], and 1week/60 = 2.8hrs. I figured that since you are experiencing time at the accelerated rate, you will have whatever requirements for mental rest in the simulspace that you would normally have if you were doing a task action in meat-space. Therefore a day is 24 hours, not 8. I don't see how speeding up your brain lets you also ignore an apparently figured in 16 hours each day. With this figure, my 60x acceleration is as potent as you would calculate 20x acceleration.

Lalande21185 wrote:

Quote:
(I still have trouble seeing what makes it stressful for psychosurgery. I could see a continuity-test for coming out of time acceleration/deceleration as the time difference might be jarring, but as long as the simulation isn't dropping bits or otherwise making bad shortcuts it seems like things should be indistinguishable from non-accelerated simulspace).
I though the stress was from people cutting into your brain to make changes, not the simulspace?

I was referring to the +2 stress and -20 modifier on psychosurgery checks which utilize simulspace time acceleration (EP p231). The cutting into your brain causes stress, but for some reason, doing it in time acceleration increases the stress.

Sun, 2013-08-11 20:48

#41

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Urashima Effect

Quote:
I calculated time accelerated task actions as taking [normal task action time period]/[time acceleration factor], and 1week/60 = 2.8hrs. I figured that since you are experiencing time at the accelerated rate, you will have whatever requirements for mental rest in the simulspace that you would normally have if you were doing a task action in meat-space. Therefore a day is 24 hours, not 8. I don't see how speeding up your brain lets you also ignore an apparently figured in 16 hours each day.

Okay first I am going to point out a few things from the RAW relevant to our discussion (any emphasis is mine): From Eclipse Phase, p. 120: "For Task actions with timeframes of one day or longer, it is assumed that the character only works eight hours per day. [b]A character that works more hours per day may reduce the time accordingly.[/b]" From Eclipse Phase, p. 262: "While interacting with the simulation, treat simulmorphs as basic infomorphs for all rules purposes, even if the egos are still possessing another morph body in reality." From Transhuman, p. 133: "The conventional wisdom is that uploads and AGIs are tireless workers. This is partly true. [b]They can, at need, remain focused and alert almost indefinitely[/b] without experiencing the chemically driven emotions accompanying boredom." So I would say that the a simulmorph can work 24 hours a day without a problem. Then there are the MoS/time frame reduction rules to do weird things to the task action times. Note that in my 3x example above, at the minimum time the psychosurgeon only worked 5.4 hours in simulspace! This is less than a days work. From your explanation of how you calculated these things, it looks like you disregarded the MoS/speed time reduction rules completely... which is actually a pretty smart move. Of course, there are other problems with easy 60x acceleration. First of all mental disorders only last 40 minutes (2 hours if only working 8 hours a day). Phobias only last 20 minutes (1 hour if only working 8 hours a day). Similarly stress is a lot easier to manage, when one minute of time heals 1 point of stress, and a quick 8 minutes heals a trauma. Then there is the whole accelerated programmer problem...

Quote:
I was referring to the +2 stress and -20 modifier on psychosurgery checks which utilize simulspace time acceleration (EP p231). The cutting into your brain causes stress, but for some reason, doing it in time acceleration increases the stress.

You are right, that is weird.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Sun, 2013-08-11 20:54

#42

Anarchitect Anarchitect's picture

How would you feel about

How would you feel about accumulating stress when transitioning from differing levels of acceleration? I would think that spending a few subjective days in simulspace and coming out with only a few minutes passed might cause something akin to continuity problems. Set the values of it based on how different the timescales are. There'd be little point to drastic time dilation to do psychotherapy, as you'd take as much stress coming out as you healed going in. I like the idea that time dilation is limited heavily by computing power, and getting enough computing power to do heavy time dilation will attract the attention of people concerned about seed AI.

Sun, 2013-08-11 23:47

#43

jackgraham jackgraham's picture

Lalande21185 wrote:SUPER

Lalande21185 wrote:
[b]SUPER SERIOUS MODE = ON[/b] What I don't support is the roleplaying Insanity section, particularly the second paragraph, which is easily the worst thing I remember reading in an Eclipse Phase book. I am mentally ill. I have general anxiety disorder (GAD). People with a mental illness are not 'insane' or 'mad' and I find this section both prejudiced and discriminatory. Basically, as a person with a mental illness, I felt insulted by this section. Also, the whole unpredictability section of the second paragraph seems a) wrong for many illnesses and b) unnecessarily stigmatizing. [b]SUPER SERIOUS MODE = OFF[/b]

Sorry it bothered you. I should start out by saying that I suffer from depression -- often pretty severe before I got over the stigma and got on the crazy pills. Prior to that I spent about 15 years of my life self-medicating with various substances, which became its own problem. So while I've never been institutionalized or had a panic attack or anything like that, I haven't had the chemically-balanced, bump free ride that a lot of people take for granted. So then... While I had little to do with that section other than giving it a proofreading pass, I found it relatively innocuous, and still do re-reading the sections you cited. We have a long history in the hobby games industry, going back to Call of Cthulhu, of using "insanity"/"madness" as a dramatic element that's divorced from the actual effects & experience of mental illness. While I don't question your right to take offense, there's perhaps some sense in this, in that many of the effects of stressful stimuli in both EP and CoC are the result of exposure to cosmically horrific mind-warping effects, alien mind virii, or similar. They neither represent nor purport to represent real world mental illness. Maybe part of the problem is that we're not drawing a clear line between "insanity" (effects resulting directly from mind-bending alien horror) and realistic mental illness. And maybe this isn't helped by the fact that we employ real-world clinical terms for many of the disorders described in the rules. At any rate, feel free to tell me more about what bothered you & why, here or by private message. I'm curious whether you had a similar reaction to any of the material on mental disorders in EP core or our other products, and/or how you feel about how it's portrayed in other products like CoC.

—

J A C K G R A H A M :: Hooray for Earth! http://eclipsephase.com :: twitter @jackgraham @faketsr :: Google+Jack Graham

Mon, 2013-08-12 11:30

#44

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

@jackgraham

jackgraham wrote:
At any rate, feel free to tell me more about what bothered you & why, here or by private message.

There is widespread pattern of shame, stigmatization, and discrimination against those with mental illness (I live in the USA, btw). Words like "crazy", "insane", "irrational", "nutcase", "unpredictable", "psycho", etc. are words that contribute to the stigma of mental illness. This can have serious real world consequences as it can prevent people from getting help, people like me and you. Now games may try to create a separate world, but they exist in this world. And looking at the book, mental disorder pretty clearly represents a mental illness, and as such the use of pejorative words in context with mental illness (disorders) has a real and negative effect in the culture by stigmatizing mental illness. I am not sure I am explaining myself well here, let me try again: People soak up information from the culture and media that form their beliefs. So even if no one outright says "you should be ashamed for having a mental illness" it is possible to pick up that message from the word choices people use in the context of mental illness. So even if it is not the intent that mental disorders = real world mental illness, the use of pejorative terms in context with mental disorders is still highly problematic. So that being said, let me give you some examples from the text:

Transhuman wrote:
Many players overact and handle character trauma with excessive and extreme behavior, but [b]true madness is unpredictable[/b] and often quite subtle. Remember that characters with a derangement or [b]disorder[/b] still [b]think of themselves in rational terms[/b]; only [b]their perception of what is real and acceptable is skewed[/b]. An [b]insane[/b] character usually thinks they’re still sane but that others won’t understand their point of view.

So in these three sentences you have a section saying characters (and thus people) with a disorder (mental illness) are: a) mad b) unpredictable c) irrational with distorted views of what is real and acceptable d) are insane I am not saying that this was the intention of the section, but that is what it is saying regardless. Moving on (emphasis still mine):

Transhuman wrote:
Hence, [b]insane[/b] characters will usually try to hide their illness so they can remain in society. Characters don’t instantly act out after receiving a derangement or disorder. The mercenary who gains [b]OCD[/b] from a traumatic gunfight won’t act on that disorder during the fight. Eventually, they have to act on their [b]madness[/b], but there’s [b]no set rhythm or pattern to these outbursts[/b]. Other players and the gamemaster will appreciate one dramatic outburst more than constant attempts to work in a particular disorder in every scene of the game. This isn’t to say that a character has to remain perfectly normal for the rest of the game, but [b]unpredictability[/b] captures the essence of [b]roleplaying madness[/b] better than outrageous behavior or even a reliable tic or quirk.

So this section basically called people with OCD, insane, mad and unpredictable. Then it goes on to say that if you want to roleplay a mental disorder correctly you need to unpredictable, which is both inaccurate and stigmatizing. Again, I am not arguing any negative intent on the authors part. It is just that they are (unconsciously) perpetuating the negative bias against the mentally ill through the use of language stigmatizing mental illness and I really don't like that. Hopefully, that better explains why I found this section so offputting?

jackgraham wrote:
I'm curious whether you had a similar reaction to any of the material on mental disorders in EP core or our other products, and/or how you feel about how it's portrayed in other products like CoC.

I have never played CoC. The core book was much better than this, though it is still slightly problematic: The term 'Madness' was only mentioned once as I recall. At the very start of the disorder section it says "Disorders reflect more permanent madness." The term 'Insanity' is more epidemic, but... I don't know how to explain this... it has a much narrower definition that makes it more acceptable. Let me try and elaborate: I realize that you have to have some word to describe the concept of a person with mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct their affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to completely uncontrollable impulsive behavior (that was paraphrased from a legal definition, btw). Using the word insanity exclusively in this context, which from what I remember the core book does (with the caveat that the book also assumes this is a permanent state), is to me is far less troubling than labeling everyone with a mental illness as "insane" as [em]Transhuman[/em] does.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Mon, 2013-08-12 11:38

#45

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

@Anarchitect

Quote:
How would you feel about accumulating stress when transitioning from differing levels of acceleration? I would think that spending a few subjective days in simulspace and coming out with only a few minutes passed might cause something akin to continuity problems. Set the values of it based on how different the timescales are. There'd be little point to drastic time dilation to do psychotherapy, as you'd take as much stress coming out as you healed going in.

Well, you would probably have to adjust the stress by how much time is spent in simulspace, but it is a workable solution. You still have the programmer problem though. Upon further reflection, there are lots of 'sort of solutions' to the problem, but the real problem seems to be in the underlying task action rules and the setting. Task action rules: The task action rules... well they are not good. They don't take into account the transhuman condition in their definition of a work day but at the same time they make it way too easy to achieve a 90% reduction to the time of most task actions you want to do in simulspace which interacts weirdly with the definition. Even outside of simulspace, it is a pretty serious flaw with the system. One that I am not sure how to fix it outside of extensive houserules.* The setting: The second problem is the setting doesn't really support some people being easily able to do things up to 60x faster than others. Almost everything involving art, design, engineering, etc. would be done by those people. The setting does contain allowances for simulspace, but not that extreme. Part of why I limit simulspace acceleration factors is to make a more consistent and believable setting.

Quote:
I like the idea that time dilation is limited heavily by computing power, and getting enough computing power to do heavy time dilation will attract the attention of people concerned about seed AI.

I also like this idea. Very much so. It helps the setting problem I mentioned above immensely. If most games and such are limited to 3x or less, and most corporate/well funded/supported projects (the Lost project) are limited to 6x or less, then the setting problems pretty much go away; Especially if you add an additional limiting rule, like stress from (leaving) high acceleration or a substantial skill penalty based on acceleration. * I do have a completely non-playtested skeleton of a 3d6 roll under version of Eclipse Phase moldering away on my hardrive/written in notebooks that handles the task action/mental speed rules a little differently. I have the basic game mechanics section (equivalent to the first part of chapter 4 in the corebook) typed up and could clean it up a little and post it if anyone is interested. It is pretty basic though and doesn't actually cover much of relevance to the discussion.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Tue, 2013-08-13 11:19

#46

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Final of Playing Characters rant

Continuing going through the chapter... Not much to say on the remaining sections. They seemed decent. The only thing I noticed: [b]Making it up[/b] p. 179. This section has a massively jarring transition, or rather lack of one, between the two columns. That is the example doesn't match the preceding paragraph. Playing Characters (75/75 = 100% done)

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Tue, 2013-08-13 22:58

#47

Decivre

Lalande21185 wrote:There is

Lalande21185 wrote:
There is widespread pattern of shame, stigmatization, and discrimination against those with mental illness (I live in the USA, btw). Words like "crazy", "insane", "irrational", "nutcase", "unpredictable", "psycho", etc. are words that contribute to the stigma of mental illness. This can have serious real world consequences as it can prevent people from getting help, people like me and you. Now games may try to create a separate world, but they exist in this world. And looking at the book, mental disorder pretty clearly represents a mental illness, and as such the use of pejorative words in context with mental illness (disorders) has a real and negative effect in the culture by stigmatizing mental illness. I am not sure I am explaining myself well here, let me try again: People soak up information from the culture and media that form their beliefs. So even if no one outright says "you should be ashamed for having a mental illness" it is possible to pick up that message from the word choices people use in the context of mental illness. So even if it is not the intent that mental disorders = real world mental illness, the use of pejorative terms in context with mental disorders is still highly problematic.

But is this a problem with how they portray it in the game, or how we stigmatize it today? I agree that today's handling of mental illness is dreadful. As someone who helps care for an autistic child, I've seen how people can be cruel about things. But at the same time, really consider how Eclipse Phase portrays mental illness. In the context of the game, disorders and derangements are treated as mental analogues of wounds. When you get hit mentally hard enough, you receive one. The game mechanics treat it as no more stigmatizing than a broken bone or severe physical injury would be. To that end, the game treats mental illness as something, like wounds, that should be treated in order to mend, rather than discussed and ignored. I think this is actually a good thing. This is how we [i]should[/i] be treating it today, and that's exactly how it is treated within the setting AND the game mechanics.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-14 00:32

#48

Anarchitect Anarchitect's picture

There are a lot of "sort of"

There are a lot of "sort of" solutions because the problem is in fact several smaller problems working multiplicitively, and you have to resolve the component problem one at a time. For example, I don't buy the 24 hour a day workday, even for infomorphs, synthmorphs, and AGIs. Even if you have the capacity to never need a rest period, I believe you'd have to at least switch tasks every so often to maintain effectiveness. Boredom isn't just some neurochemical buildup, it's a core part of our brain's time and attention management software. Breaks are good, they prevent us from throwing endless resources after diminishing returns, they allow us to revisit problems later with a fresh eye, in short they keep us working optimally. I'd make working consecutive 8-hour periods on the same task action rack up penalties, -10 per previous 8-hour period worked. Thus if you're going to go 24/7 on a task action, you'll be doing so at a -60 penalty really quick. Your optimal scenario would be to alternate between 2 different tasks. So this cuts our potential time-abuse by 50%. It's not a total solution, but part of the puzzle.

Wed, 2013-08-14 16:54

#49

nerdnumber1 nerdnumber1's picture

I tend to think that a

I tend to think that a simulspace-accelerated users must be insulated from direct outside input to maintain their sanity. You can't look at live feeds without being infuriated by the slow movement rates (getting a complete text or video file sent in is fine, though). Also, I ban external simulspace-accelerated hacking, saying that most security systems slow down i/o to prevent this sort of silliness (plus this crosses my insulated input rule). Essentially, you can simulspace accelerate tasks where all the tools and items you need to work with are in your simulspace already. If you need extra research information, you can have a party (such as a muse or fork) on the outside to fetch requested data for you (or you can leave), but that can put a slow-point in the system, reducing effectiveness. Onto the subject of skill penalties and stress from time acceleration. I'm not sure why you would really get a penalty from time acceleration. I mean, there isn't anything that necessarily feels different, as long as you don't look outside. Maybe if you are pushing the speed of the machine to a point where it cannot properly process your thoughts, forcing it to either make costly short-cuts and/or drop bits, but that is a matter of pushing the limits of your hardware too far, not an inherent part of time-acceleration. As for continuity stress, I'm not sure if "too much time" has the same bite as "lost time" as experienced in traditional continuity loss. After all, you know exactly what you were doing all that time, there are no missing bits; no "you" who did stuff and then died leaving you with nothing but questions. I could see issues if you send a fork into a simulspace for a subjective week for a project, then lift him out to merge with your own mind only hours later, thus forcing your brain to merge a weeks memories into the breadth of a few hours (this might be why time acceleration effects psychosurgery stress, since psychosurgery is generally done on forks to keep from screwing up the main ego, then the fork is re-integrated!). Maybe put in a minor stress problem, but I think you could get used to this sort of thing without too many issues. _______________________ On the mental disorder subject: I think the best way to deal with this would be a disclaimer stating that most mental illnesses do not behave anything like what the book depicts, and many are mostly benign, especially when controlled by modern medicine (and moreso when treated by Eclipse Phase technology). While a player is free to create a character with a more realistic illness, the "mental disorder" disadvantage signifies a rare and particularly acute (and not necessarily realistic) condition that hinders the character's function in a manner not easily controlled by medical science, therefore providing points as a negative trait. This disclaimer will have to be revised and edited of course, as I am not a great writer. Personally, I have ADD, petit-mal epilepsy, depression, and a borderline case of Aspergers syndrome; all of which are treated by a rainbow of daily medications which I cannot function without. I'm a bit messed up, but I am also very bright (whether the atypical mental condition contributes to my success is questionable, but I like to believe that it is a trade-off as it make all that other crap worth it).

Wed, 2013-08-14 19:17

#50

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Regarding Mental Illness

@Decivre I agree that it is a problem with the way society stigmatizes it. Personally, I (mostly) have no problem with how the rules and settings deal with mental illness. What I do have a problem with is the books ([em]Transhuman[/em]) perpetuation of the real-world stigmatization through the language it uses. @nerdnumber1 I don't think a disclaimer would really address what I dislike about the section in [em]Transhuman[/em]. If anything, it would make the problem worse by trying to hide the discriminatory use of language behind a disclaimer, instead of fixing the original problem (the language used). -------------- I think people are missing the point I was trying to make in my above post. So let me reiterate through some examples: First, let us consider the word 'Insane': * It is usually a very pejorative term. Calling someone insane is usually not a complement. * It has a very specific meaning in the core rulebook. So when this section says (paraphrasing), "People with mental disorders (illness) are insane," that is a bad thing. It perpetuates a negative stereotype, especially considering the usage of the term in the core book. Second, let us look at the word 'Rational': * Rational is usually a positive term. Calling someone rational is usually a good thing. So lets look at how the section in transhuman uses it (exact quote): "Remember that characters with a derangement or disorder still think of themselves in rational terms;" thus implying that they are [b]not[/b] rational. This is grossly insulting and serves to perpetuate the negative stereotypes about the mentally ill. Additionally, the sections implying that the mentally ill are all timebombs waiting to go off should be seriously reworked if not excised entirely. This is one of the biggest negative stereotypes about the mentally ill, and that [em]Transhuman[/em] perpetuates it is a huge disappointment to me. The point I am trying to make is that negative stereotypes and stigmatization occurs in part because of which words we use to describe something. And the section in [em]Transhuman[/em] is chock full of the words that create negative stereotypes about the mentally ill. ---------------------- Let me try and explain this another way: When young people are asked to list terms describing people with mental illness, they list negative terms (like 'mad', 'insane', and 'unpredictable'). This is not because people are sitting down and telling others that mentally ill people are all of these negative terms, it is because the culture (including pp. 121-122 of [em]Transhuman[/em]) uses these terms when talking about the mentally ill. This is a serious problem, because it causes people to stigmatize the mentally ill, and the mentally ill to avoid treatment do to stigmatization. Hopefully, you can see why I really don't like the section of [em]Transhuman[/em]. If not, I can try to elaborate some more.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Wed, 2013-08-14 20:08

#51

nerdnumber1 nerdnumber1's picture

@Lalande21185

@Lalande21185 I was trying to distinguish the mental disorders that are defined in rules with the broad range of mental illness that exists in reality, many of which don't necessarily impair one's performance to an extent measurable in a game system (or in a way difficult to describe and/or roleplay. I guess that doesn't quite help get rid of the blanket "crazy" category, but I hoped it might. It is difficult to reduce any disorder, culture, group, religion, or any of a number of complex subjects into a set of rules and concise descriptions. It is almost impossible to offer any general advice on "here is how you rp a mental disorder" unless, perhaps, you are taking a crude subset of mental disorder cases, as the rulebook tends to.

Rants about Transhuman

Pages