Not Impressed with MGT Preview #4

[Tathlum]

Maybe it's just people worrying because they haven't heard a 'goose say "we're changing the scale to 2m" or "we're redoing the maps" or even "we're looking at it" or "we're not looking at it we are happy as is".

I believe quite a few threads spiralled because of frustration at not hearing anything from Mongoose. Not all of course many were doomed from the start.

I honestly think a quick word would help matters.

 

[atpollard]

I guess if you think this is the important part of your game then by all means get upset that some sclae is out of sync.

Me, I don't particularly care. I doubt it will EVER be a problem in any games I run.

From your signature, you appear to be keen on wargames.

The Scout plan is the equivalent of a 'painted 25 mm miniature' labeled 'for use with 15 mm miniatures' and sold as part of a 15mm rules set.

It is not the end of all life as we know it, but it is "wrong".

Old Timers are annoyed more than might seem appropriate because the same mistake was made on the same ship 30 years ago and has been faithfully repeated in most of the versions that followed. The explanations, excuses and rationalizations have all gotten old, tired and stale - how hard is it to create a plan at the correct scale?

I design Hospitals, Malls and Town Centers for a living. I once tried to redesign the Scout to accurately fit in the hull and it is a HARD shape. So I have a lot more sympathy for anyone making deckplans for it. You also cannot simply 'count the squares' since less than half of the ship is capable of having a 3m tall cieling. For the other half of the ship volume, the roof and floor both slope - altering the grid count per ton.

 

[Court Jester]

I guess if you think this is the important part of your game then by all means get upset that some sclae is out of sync.

Me, I don't particularly care. I doubt it will EVER be a problem in any games I run.

From your signature, you appear to be keen on wargames.

The Scout plan is the equivalent of a 'painted 25 mm miniature' labeled 'for use with 15 mm miniatures' and sold as part of a 15mm rules set.

In wargaming figure size often has nothing to do with the scale of the wargame. In most of the historical wargames I play the miniatures are in no way accurate representations of what they are in the game. For instance Grand Armee is a set of Napoleonic rules where a 3" square base is a "brigade" of troops and the ground scale is 1" = 100 yards. But you can use any type of figure on the base (and people do).

Obviously for many Traveller players this focus in the technical accuracy is what the game is all about. Correct fuel allowences and making sure your cool starship design has enough power to run and it jump drives are the right size based on the games internal logic and rules is what they enjoy.

Me? I really don't find designing starships and solar systems to be that much fun or interesting. I'd rather get on with the game than get hung up on errors I'll be paying no attention to anyway.

 

[-Daniel-]

Maybe it's just people worrying because they haven't heard a 'goose say "we're changing the scale to 2m" or "we're redoing the maps" or even "we're looking at it" or "we're not looking at it we are happy as is".

I believe quite a few threads spiralled because of frustration at not hearing anything from Mongoose. Not all of course many were doomed from the start.

I honestly think a quick word would help matters.

I agree. When a few folks raise a question if Mongoose would say anything it would be over from most folks point of view.

But I think when there is no Official word and it is left to the guys to saying things over and over because each feels no one is listening. Add in a couple of comments that seem to be disrespectful and it get's harsher and harsher. Before long the sides are drawn up and each is not even trying to understand the other.

Seems to be the norm now at Mongoose. Sad really, because it seems there are a lot of very smart folks here.

Daniel

 

[Supplement Four]

/me does not understand why people are making such a fuss over an error that will probably be corrected after the first print run.

It's a big enough issue to me to feel let down with my expectaions of the game...again. First, I'm unimpressed with the rule system. Then, the art that I've seen so far has left me feeling so-so about the game.

And now, as I flip through another preview and see this mistake...well, let's just say it sure doesn't inspire confidence in the quality of the product.

If the game was coming across like gangbusters, and I couldn't wait to put up the flag, tell all my gamer buddies, and get my grubby mits on the hard copy, I probably would be a tad more forgiving of a problem (fairly big problem, imo) that I would hope would be fixed before the print run.

But, as it stands, it's another "disappointment" in the game that I see. It's another nail in the coffin, from my buying-dollar perspective.







Now, let me say something postive...

Mongoose impressed me when they re-worked the rules and took out the T/E mechanic. I'm reserving full judgement because they haven't shown me the changes yet. But, I'm hopeful. Maybe I'll end up liking this game after all. We'll see.

If they want to impress this consumer again (and they need to pull some of those nails out of the coffin of my opinion of the game), then they'll have the deckplans re-worked to the correct scale before the game sees print.

 

[TrippyHippy]

But you didn't actually notice the mistake yourself, did you? It was pointed out to you by somebody else, which then became the focus of your criticism. Prior to that, your complaint was a more general 'this doesn't excite me enough' claim.

I do accept and agree with the sentiment about mistakes that have been pointed out shouldn't necessitate an aggressive, defensive response - if they can be fixed quickly and easily then just get on with it. Fine, and thanks for pointing them out.

But, y'know, when was the last time you bought a rpg core rules book that didn't have mistakes in it? Almost every game I have ever seen has needed a errata supplement a few months down the line, or a new 'revised edition' a few years later. I'm not trying to be defensive here, just realistic to the normal standards that we get from any game. I do happen to think that the thing that is likely to put off more potential buyers than anything else is the conduct of the fanbase, in terms of endless negativity, rather than any particular mistake in the book.

 

[captainjack23]

Jack: stateroom volumes are canonically only half in the room, the rest is commons. Commons space traditionally has been taken from staterooms and bridge tonnage. See The Traveller Book or Traveller Bk 2.

Your objections and hyperbole are, to be blunt, beside the point, since we have a guideline in several places... This design fails against that guideline. It's not even within the 10% slop that the aforesaid guideline allows for.

It's no different than designing a federation starship for Trek which has no nacelles but still does Warp 9... it violates the constraints of the setting norms.

As presented, the plan is majorly flawed. It needs corrections and/or clarifications.

As for what a ship is like when done within those guidelines:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=256387#post
256387

Well, since we've just run into the canon non-canon wall, we should probably stop. Honestly, I'm less concerned that the decisions reflect the guidelines of four editions ago than that it produces a workable plan and game with the correct flavor. And where the space is allocated from from really isn't a make or break, particularly since the canon guidelines also produce questionable ships. Even more so since we have no idea if a new set of deckplan guidelines has been formulated, which we haven't seen.

Besides, even if it is flawed at 2m scale, does it then work at 1.5 m ? If so, then where is the problem ? The problem seems to be that the artist took the complaints about it being too small at face value, and answered casually....and you DON'T do that with this bunch.

Probably why we don't hear from mongoose anymore. I mean, who can blame them if so ? I mean we get a preview, we rant about it being too small, then we get a correction, and then we rant about the correction being wrong; then we rant about not hearing more on the subject; and then how the entire company is this way, and that the whole project is majorly broken because it got an error, and it wasn't immediately made right in everyones eyes.

Yeah. Fairly unreasonable of them to be getting on with their jobs and lives rather than mixing it up with a bunch of hobbyists who like sitting around in bathrobes typing (guilty)......

And, since you brought it up -warp 9 without nacelles ? The Defiant.

 

[Supplement Four]

But you didn't actually notice the mistake yourself, did you? It was pointed out to you by somebody else, which then became the focus of your criticism. Prior to that, your complaint was a more general 'this doesn't excite me enough' claim.

Just for clarification...

I can see why it looks that way to you given my first few posts in this thread. But, looks are deceiving.

I knew about the deckplan problem before I posted, but I hadn't read all the thread on the CotI. I wanted to read it all before I posted here. I didn't see the point on being negative about something before I understood all of it.

Once I read it, I posted that info as well.

But, yes, I did know about the deckplan issue before I made the first post. If you check the time between posts, there isn't that much time between them.

 

[Supplement Four]

I do happen to think that the thing that is likely to put off more potential buyers than anything else is the conduct of the fanbase, in terms of endless negativity, rather than any particular mistake in the book.

Don't you think that's because the "fanbase" isn't liking what its seeing?

I mean, if I were nuts about what I saw in MGT, you'd see a lot of postive, glowing reports coming out of me rather than the mostly negative posts I've made.

The negativity comes from not liking what I'm seeing with the game. The negativity comes from being disappointed in what I had hoped would be a GREAT version of Traveller.

If you look on the CotI, I was a supporter of Mongoose's effort to take over the Traveller reins. It wasn't until I had seen what Mongoose was coming up with for the game that my support turned to disappointment.

To your comment above: If the "fanbase" really liked what they saw, you'd see a lot more positive comments.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Well my small reservations have got nothing to do with scale. I don't mind if a deckplan is 50% out of wack either way. It's just that this design is less interesting than the original one.

I mean, on the Sulirman there's 2 routes from the engine room to the bridge. That's cool from a gaming standpoint. You could run Die Hard with that, on such a small ship.

Then again, it doesn't really matter. The type S is a specification rather than a design. There's probably hundreds of different types in the 3I from different eras, areas, and corporations. So here's another one. Won't stop me using the old deckplan, but now I got a new one for a bit of variety now and again.

 

[captainjack23]

Well my small reservations have got nothing to do with scale. I don't mind if a deckplan is 50% out of wack either way. It's just that this design is less interesting than the original one.

I mean, on the Sulirman there's 2 routes from the engine room to the bridge. That's cool from a gaming standpoint. You could run Die Hard with that, on such a small ship.

Then again, it doesn't really matter. The type S is a specification rather than a design. There's probably hundreds of different types in the 3I from different eras, areas, and corporations. So here's another one. Won't stop me using the old deckplan, but now I got a new one for a bit of variety now and again.

Thank you for that brief moment of sanity .

 

[captainjack23]

I do happen to think that the thing that is likely to put off more potential buyers than anything else is the conduct of the fanbase, in terms of endless negativity, rather than any particular mistake in the book.

Don't you think that's because the "fanbase" isn't liking what its seeing?

I mean, if I were nuts about what I saw in MGT, you'd see a lot of postive, glowing reports coming out of me rather than the mostly negative posts I've made.

The negativity comes from not liking what I'm seeing with the game. The negativity comes from being disappointed in what I had hoped would be a GREAT version of Traveller.

If you look on the CotI, I was a supporter of Mongoose's effort to take over the Traveller reins. It wasn't until I had seen what Mongoose was coming up with for the game that my support turned to disappointment.

To your comment above: If the "fanbase" really liked what they saw, you'd see a lot more positive comments.

Ah. The loudest voices are the fanbase. Right. I forgot.

With any luck, the fanbase for this game is yet to be. 12 grumps in bathrobes does not a fanbase make.

 

[-Daniel-]

Ah. The loudest voices are the fanbase. Right. I forgot.

Both an interesting and ironic thought this...

Daniel

 

[gamesmeister]

When I first saw the deckplans, I got a rather warm cosy feeling inside...what does that mean?

Should I seek help? :wink:

 

[Supplement Four]

I do happen to think that the thing that is likely to put off more potential buyers than anything else is the conduct of the fanbase, in terms of endless negativity, rather than any particular mistake in the book.

Don't you think that's because the "fanbase" isn't liking what its seeing?

I mean, if I were nuts about what I saw in MGT, you'd see a lot of postive, glowing reports coming out of me rather than the mostly negative posts I've made.

The negativity comes from not liking what I'm seeing with the game. The negativity comes from being disappointed in what I had hoped would be a GREAT version of Traveller.

If you look on the CotI, I was a supporter of Mongoose's effort to take over the Traveller reins. It wasn't until I had seen what Mongoose was coming up with for the game that my support turned to disappointment.

To your comment above: If the "fanbase" really liked what they saw, you'd see a lot more positive comments.

Ah. The loudest voices are the fanbase. Right. I forgot.

With any luck, the fanbase for this game is yet to be. 12 grumps in bathrobes does not a fanbase make.

Notice I used the term "fanbase" with quotation marks, quoting Trip's use of the word.

So your comment is rather amiss.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It's not really amiss. It makes the quite reasonable point that the criticisms are not coming from any established 'fanbase' as a whole. Rather it's a few individuals online. It's wrong to assume that these two equate with each other.

 

[captainjack23]

Don't you think that's because the "fanbase" isn't liking what its seeing?

I mean, if I were nuts about what I saw in MGT, you'd see a lot of postive, glowing reports coming out of me rather than the mostly negative posts I've made.

The negativity comes from not liking what I'm seeing with the game. The negativity comes from being disappointed in what I had hoped would be a GREAT version of Traveller.

If you look on the CotI, I was a supporter of Mongoose's effort to take over the Traveller reins. It wasn't until I had seen what Mongoose was coming up with for the game that my support turned to disappointment.

To your comment above: If the "fanbase" really liked what they saw, you'd see a lot more positive comments.

Ah. The loudest voices are the fanbase. Right. I forgot.

With any luck, the fanbase for this game is yet to be. 12 grumps in bathrobes does not a fanbase make.

Notice I used the term "fanbase" with quotation marks, quoting Trip's use of the word.

So your comment is rather amiss.

Only the initial comment about the loudness - if that. Quote marks are so often misused that I basically ignore them. In this case, your using them as a sarcasm marker was missed. My apology.

As to the fanbase being non-existent, that still works. And the dozen grumps in bathrobes ? A mind-numbing image, I admit, but also not any kind of measure of an actual fanbase.

That said, its worth noting that social and cognitive Psyc has shown again and again that negative comments are invariably overrepresented in these kind of discussions, whereas praise or support, is far less likely to be stated, or tolerated.

Accordingly, anonamyzed critique, while very good for identifying specific problems, is of little value when trying to determine popular opinion.

So yes, theres a typo (perhaps), but no, the reaction doesn't reflect any kind of consensus.

 

[captainjack23]

When I first saw the deckplans, I got a rather warm cosy feeling inside...what does that mean?

Should I seek help? :wink:

Yes. That's a professional opinion.

So, send me $100.00, and I'll treat you by blaming it on your early and pathological family ties. Well, it might not cure you, it will eliminate that warm and cozy feeling.... :wink:

 

[-Daniel-]

When I first saw the deckplans, I got a rather warm cosy feeling inside...what does that mean?

Should I seek help? :wink:

No need. Just smile and be happy.

Daniel

 

[AKAramis]

There is a strong fanbase for Traveller; it sells quite a bit. Given the nigh universal grumping of my players over the shift from 1.5m to 2m squares in TNE, and the grumping that the Game Stats given often didn't match the deckplans within the guidelines in re Supps 5 and 7, and that the guidelines have been consisted in three of the 5 editions, including the second most recent (T20)...

Those guidelines are pretty consistent. TNE simply changed to a different size, but kept the half room and half commons for SR's, and the ±10% rule, and T4 included the same guidline as TNE...

It's pretty consistent.

It's been a major topic for a large subset of traveller GM's and a smaller subset of players.

My players, when they interact with their ships, interact with the deckplans, not with the ship design spreadsheet. So I want the decplans close, and noted where liberties are taken.

The "2m square" handwave won't work, since it violates the guideline by putting about 80 tons of internal space on a ship which should have 54 by the design sheet, and distributes it quite wrong. "1.5m square" doesn't work, because it has forty of the approximately 54 internal tons represented.

Then the design itself is not exactly sensible, either. 10 weeks of fuel? Pretty much, any place you can't find stuff to run through the FPP within a couple weeks, you're not going to be able to reach anywhere better in 10...

And the illustration of the exterior is a different aspect ratio pyramid from the deckplan.

All in all, it's not the quality I would expect from a company doing a new edition of the oldest still selling Sci-Fi Gaming Brand Name.