In a way, this is yet another thread about the problem with fumbling, countering and the myriad ways hostiles nanoformulas and nukes work. It is not, however, the game mechanics or the need for lower counters and fumbling that prompts me to write this. I am starting this thread because I want to discuss just what it is that these nanoformulas do... and why there is a major conflict in what we see, what we do, and what we get when we run them.
A hostile nanoformula. We upload these complicated routines into our permanant storage system for easy reference and application to the nanobots that are the canvas upon which we paint. Some few of us are creative... Kel and Izgimmer, even Enfraam from time to time... but the majority of us are technicians. We aren't writing new code, simply applying existing routines in the field. When the time is right, we do a few quick range and targetting calculations, maybe adapt a little to compensate for environment or weather considerations and execute the formula.
When this step is taken, we allocate a portion of our nanobot field to perform any number of things: they can seek out the eyes to form a dense cloud capable of absorbing photonic energy, they can process the raw notum in the air to accelerate replication sequences, they can subtly shift the pattern of photons reflected by our bodies to make us more difficult to target, and they can restore parts of our bodies that deviate from a healthy normal template.
These are, of course, the beneficial uses... but hostile nanoformulas work a bit differently. When a hostile nanoformula is run, the nanobots assigned this task travel away from your field and invade the nanobot field of the target. They then seek to force an algorithm to run locally, corrupting the use of the nanobot containment units and computers to achieve this end. Once the routine has infected the system, it is able to commandeer the necessary nanobot resources to enforce this external effect as though it were run locally.
Slightly different from the majority of nanoformulas, the nuke (and many other damage producing types) relies on the nanobot's ability to manipulate the environment. Through the creation and manipulate of specific atomic or moleculer structures, we can create many destructive forces. Metal particles can be accelerated using magnetic fields to incredible speeds... without the need for a rail gun. Or the same process can be applied in a nonlinear fashion to create intense heat from friction just prior to the creation of higher combustable materials. Destruction has always been easier than creation, through the simple application of enough notum and nanobots... what couldn't we achieve?
---------------------------------------
So... what's the point here? Well... in thinking about these concepts, I've noticed a few conflicting elements.
- Most hostile nanoformulas... nuke or otherwise... appear on the victim's display as "X forces your NCU to run Y."
- As expected the nanobot cost of nanoformulas is charged to the caster, not the victim.
- The victim is given an opportunity to 'counter' the execution of hostile nanoformulas.
- The caster has a chance to fumble the execution of the nanoformulas.
- Many hostile nanoformulas have a tightly bound 'stream' of nanobots that carry the hostile nanobots to the victim.
- Many nukes have other visual effects that are determined by the type of damage that is being generated by the program.
If the nanobots that are going to the victim only have the purpose of carrying the formula to execute a routine in the target's NCU:
- only creatures or people who have their own nanobot fields and NCU would be affected by them. this would mean nanoformulas cannot be used as terrain altering tools (a la Jobe)
- the victim should get a chance to counter the routine through effective 'firewalls' and security countermeasures.
- they should cost the victim nanobots from their own field when their computer runs the hostile program.
- all visual effects should be simply a transmission stream of nanobots with the damage type effect appearing only at the victim and only within the radius of that target's nanobot field.
- hostile nanoformulas should be preventable by having no nanobots in one's nanobot field or by having no available memory/room in the NCU... or, the hostile formula should disable other programs to clear room for itself and delay activation until nanobots are available to create the results
On the other hand, if hostile nanoformulas and/or nukes rely upon the nanobots programmed by the person running the nanoformula, many of these things are corrected, but others become problems:
- Nano cost is decided completely at the point of origin.
- visual effects appear accurate in all cases (those formulas that use streaming transmission before causing an effect are fairly basic beam paths while nanobots producing damage are beginning their energy transmission process at a point to create maximum yield)
- The message claiming that someone is running something in your NCU needs to go away.
- NanoResist needs to be adjusted to work on those nanoformulas that require some sort of 'insinuation' into the victim's nanobot field.
It is important to note that I'm not saying NanoResist shouldn't apply to nukes or some hostile nanoformulas. However, the explanation needs to be clarified somewhat. In fact... with the removal of the invasion notice about someone else running something in one's NCU... a replacement explanation can be made. Even more so if countering is changed slightly.
The messages to do this?
For hostile nanoformulas (not nukes):
victim: X has transmitted a hostile nanoformula (Y) through your nanobot field.
victim: Your defensive nanobot security routines of interrupted the transmission of a hostile nanoformula.
user: Your nanoformula was disabled by the target's security routines.
For nukes:
victim: X has initiated an offensive nanobot attack (Y).
(damage message)
victim: Your security routines identified hostile energies being formed by nanobots. Dispersal force successful.
user: Your offensive nanobot attack was disabled before reaching effective levels of energy.
With this, there comes the consideration... if you have no nanobots available for a security system... can you resist anything? Easily solved by saying there is a dedicated amount of nanobots available for defense at all times, determined by your nanoresist score. This opens up more logical reasoning for NR buffs/debuffs as it becomes a 'prepared defense' rather than one happening while you're in combat.
This also lends strength to the argument that nukes should be more difficult to "counter" than other hostile nanoformulas, because there is a great deal of difference in security systems preventing hostile nanobot intrusion into your nanobot field and using it to disable an attack of nanobots creating substances and energy fields that are not nearby. Take the various projectile nukes for example... NR/security should have a hard time distinguishing the approach of a small metallic particle from a soldier's weapon and one formed and propelled by nanobots. Once its up to speed, there aren't any nanobots involved.
I would argue that there is no NR for a projectile nuke... that it should be a matter of dodge-ranged... unless the security nanobots have the ability to detect the execution of the routines that create the metallic particle and the magnetic forces to propel it... and then travel to the point that this is occurring and disrupt it before it finishes. Possible? Yes. Probably too complicated to worry about... but its something to consider as we continue to discuss how NanoResist affects us.
Jaesic