MGT and Red Herring

[phavoc]

After spending a few hours going over the deckplans (and writing up all my comments), something came to mind. We already know the ship construction rules are no longer part of the core rule book. The assumption (until we are given an official statement) is that a new high guard will also be coming along.

Based upon the review of some of the provided plans, there's a problem. We can see the layouts of the ships, but one has to be very careful about how far you proceed down that path. I posted that the subsidized liner has nearly a third of its tonnage devoted to freight, and that the Type-R Fat Boy has 6 too many staterooms on board.

But, what if MGT has jiggered with the baseline stats again? If that's the case then really reviewing the deckplans has limited usefulness. Yes, we can look at the graphics quality (some good, some quite horrible), we can look at the layout, but we have no idea if the design fits within the parameters of what is a CORRECT design or not. All we have to go by is the previous rule sets and stats that have stayed more or less consistent across multiple platforms.

So I'm left wondering if this is a good thing or not. Good, potentially, in that tweaks have been needed for quite some time. Not, potentially, because the tweaks can throw all kinds of new crap and poorly thought out changes into the mix.

Only time will tell, but it would have been nice to have them at least be up front about the changes (or even put out the accompanying NEW stats to validate designs). I feel kind of misled at this point. And somewhat disappointed. The excitement of the shiny and new is rapidly fading and concern is creeping in.

How does everyone else feel about this?

 

[Nerhesi]

The deckplans and the designs are using the new construction rules from the upcoming High Guard. I do share your concern, although probably my level of concern is much less. I think maybe some minor tweeks are required, but very little will effect these designs in the Core rule book, because:

a) They're not going over 6G
b) They're not using anything bigger than a particle turret

So ultimately, in a worst-case scenario, I would think the worst case would be a 5% variance in drive size or so. That is it however, as these ships are basically drives, powerplant and common components (staterooms, etc). No screens, bays, launch tubes, 7G+ speed, etc etc etc...

I think this is what happened in MGT1 when you look at the light fighter in core vs HG

 

[AndrewW]

After spending a few hours going over the deckplans (and writing up all my comments), something came to mind. We already know the ship construction rules are no longer part of the core rule book. The assumption (until we are given an official statement) is that a new high guard will also be coming along.

Access to draft (Word format) documents of the ‘core set’ of Traveller rule books – High Guard, Central Supply Catalogue, Vehicle Handbook, and the Traveller Companion, plus the chance to comment upon them and thus influence Traveller at a fundamental level.

See: http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/

Does that count as official?

But, what if MGT has jiggered with the baseline stats again? If that's the case then really reviewing the deckplans has limited usefulness. Yes, we can look at the graphics quality (some good, some quite horrible), we can look at the layout, but we have no idea if the design fits within the parameters of what is a CORRECT design or not. All we have to go by is the previous rule sets and stats that have stayed more or less consistent across multiple platforms.

Only time will tell, but it would have been nice to have them at least be up front about the changes (or even put out the accompanying NEW stats to validate designs). I feel kind of misled at this point. And somewhat disappointed. The excitement of the shiny and new is rapidly fading and concern is creeping in.

Yes there are changes to some of the values which will effect things. The new stats wouldn't really help without the design system to accompany it as you wouldn't know if they where valid or not (not saying it would be a bad thing to include them).

 

[phavoc]

See: http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/

Does that count as official?

I suppose so. I did not read the entire post.

Yes there are changes to some of the values which will effect things. The new stats wouldn't really help without the design system to accompany it as you wouldn't know if they where valid or not (not saying it would be a bad thing to include them).

Well, a simple note that stats have changed, and the normal ship description listing equipment and displacement would have sufficed. It would have also been a big shining spotlight on upcoming changes. I'm assuming the ships in the sample were built according to the new rules (which are unfinished it sounds like). Yeah, this is Beta and all that. I guess if the request had been 'look at the deckplans not the pieces" would have been nice.

Comparing the color ship panel illustration from the link to the Subsidized liner the cargo hold is still waayyyy over the listed 129 tons. And on the Type-R increasing the number of cabins by 33% with no apparent loss of cargo space is odd as well. Had the ships stats been listed that could have explained the differences.

The deckplans and the designs are using the new construction rules from the upcoming High Guard. I do share your concern, although probably my level of concern is much less. I think maybe some minor tweeks are required, but very little will effect these designs in the Core rule book, because:

a) They're not going over 6G
b) They're not using anything bigger than a particle turret

So ultimately, in a worst-case scenario, I would think the worst case would be a 5% variance in drive size or so. That is it however, as these ships are basically drives, powerplant and common components (staterooms, etc). No screens, bays, launch tubes, 7G+ speed, etc etc etc...

I think this is what happened in MGT1 when you look at the light fighter in core vs HG

For some designs it appears to be no big issue and I agree. With others (the aforementioned Type-R and Subsidized Liner) are more than a 5% variance, which is my point.

I did miss what Andrew pointed out, and that's my fault for missing it.

 

[AndrewW]

Well, a simple note that stats have changed, and the normal ship description listing equipment and displacement would have sufficed. It would have also been a big shining spotlight on upcoming changes. I'm assuming the ships in the sample were built according to the new rules (which are unfinished it sounds like). Yeah, this is Beta and all that. I guess if the request had been 'look at the deckplans not the pieces" would have been nice.

Yes the new rules where used for the ships. The new ship design system is pretty much together now, always subject to possible adjustments of course.