T5 Announcement!
- Thread starter BP
- Start date
TravellerArt
Mongoose
Didn't this last happen about a year ago....
(in fact exactly a year ago):wink:
(in fact exactly a year ago):wink:
Same gag, pretty much, year after year. What does this say about T5?
I said long ago that what T5 needs is for Marc to hand the whole gigantic mess over to someone who can cull a playable game out of it. At present it's just an ever-spreading morass of tables for this, that, and everything else.
It would probably be posible to take the core of T5 and make a good (simple and playable) game out of it, then build the rest into a range of supplements to cover all kinds of things. There's already enough there to fuel a very, very long string of supplements, and if Marc wants to continue codifying every possible thing then he could get on with that while the actual game is being produced.
This would need the services of a writer who can turn the dry table-fest that is T5 into a game that today's generation of gamers would want to play. At present it's only likely to appeal to die-hard fans who want it because, well, it's Traveller.
I don't believe that T5 in its present form (even if it were actually finished) has any appeal beyond a segment of the existing fanbase.
I said long ago that what T5 needs is for Marc to hand the whole gigantic mess over to someone who can cull a playable game out of it. At present it's just an ever-spreading morass of tables for this, that, and everything else.
It would probably be posible to take the core of T5 and make a good (simple and playable) game out of it, then build the rest into a range of supplements to cover all kinds of things. There's already enough there to fuel a very, very long string of supplements, and if Marc wants to continue codifying every possible thing then he could get on with that while the actual game is being produced.
This would need the services of a writer who can turn the dry table-fest that is T5 into a game that today's generation of gamers would want to play. At present it's only likely to appeal to die-hard fans who want it because, well, it's Traveller.
I don't believe that T5 in its present form (even if it were actually finished) has any appeal beyond a segment of the existing fanbase.
Tables are so 1980s. I prefer formulas. One exception: tables are an acceptable way to present gear and weapons. They should rarely need to be consulted in play. A couple of hit location tables for vehicles is fine. More than that is too much table lookup! MGT has a reasonable number of tables, but a lot of the ship design could be done with formulas instead.
dmccoy1693
Cosmic Mongoose
apoc527 said:
Or you could just design so many vehicles that you have the tables memorized. *looks innocent* :wink:
MJD said:
Seems to me, this is exactly what Mongoose is doing... I've wondered often how much of MGT's broken rules are due to the MWM review process.
T5 could be really, really cool - IF vastly simplified. My solo game right now is a mish-mash of MGT and T5, with a tiny bit of GURPS (stellar data)... I'm slowly getting to the most ultimate, playable version of Traveller ever!
In theory, Marc's approach could be a good one. Build all the rules and make them work in an itegrated fashion, then cull out a game from all that detail. It's almost the exact opposite of what CT did - CT started simple and had all manner of stuff bolted on in an ad-hoc and often contradictory manner.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is what Marc is doing. I have a horrible suspicion that the whole giant morass of rules and tables and charts and god-knows-what is meant to be the game. It's almost as if Marc wants to replace the referee with enough charts that every possible thing is covered.
Besides, the style of T5 is years out of date. That kind of chartfest, aimning to reduce everything to elegant dice mechanics, was acceptable to the average gamer 20+ years ago - and will appeal to at least some people who got into gaming then and have a fondness for that approach. But it's not going to appeal to new players.
That's fine if Marc is creating a game to please himself and the fans who think like him, but if he wants to create a game that will be successful in the marketplace it's not the right approach.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is what Marc is doing. I have a horrible suspicion that the whole giant morass of rules and tables and charts and god-knows-what is meant to be the game. It's almost as if Marc wants to replace the referee with enough charts that every possible thing is covered.
Besides, the style of T5 is years out of date. That kind of chartfest, aimning to reduce everything to elegant dice mechanics, was acceptable to the average gamer 20+ years ago - and will appeal to at least some people who got into gaming then and have a fondness for that approach. But it's not going to appeal to new players.
That's fine if Marc is creating a game to please himself and the fans who think like him, but if he wants to create a game that will be successful in the marketplace it's not the right approach.
apoc527 said:
Hi,
Not to get too off topic, but I disagree with rekying on formulas for ship design work. To me they are too subject to interpretation, whereas a table is much more explicit, you can look up and see exactly what value to use.
Several years ago when GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars 1st came out I saw alot of comments tha the ship designs in the book were broken. When I put together a spreadsheet though, based on the rules I found that if I rounded the results of each intermediate calc either to the level of precision laid out in the rule book, or a consistant level of precision for those intermediate calcs where the rule book wasn't clear, I believe I was able to reproduce all the designs in the book (if I am remembering correctly).
As such, I am much happier relying on tables than equations for this type calc.
Regards
PF
A properly written formula should be precise and not open to interpretation at all - any fault there lies not in mathematics (which is an absolute) but in lousy presentation of the formula and surrounding concepts.
Which is another way of saying that maths works fine until people get involved...
Which is another way of saying that maths works fine until people get involved...
The're a fundamental difference now.
Previously I had to watch what I said because I didn't want to rock the boat for Mongoose, so I had to retain a professional facade. Now, I'm just some guy that played the game for a few years.
The way I see it, I'm free to say what I think at last.
I did intend to stay away entirely - and God knows I've got reason enough - but I got my buttons pushed in a passing read of the forums, with certain people posting untruths about Avenger. After all the crap I got becuase of people inventing rumours - or maybe just making stuff up to cause trouble - that's a bit of an issue for me.
Previously I had to watch what I said because I didn't want to rock the boat for Mongoose, so I had to retain a professional facade. Now, I'm just some guy that played the game for a few years.
The way I see it, I'm free to say what I think at last.
I did intend to stay away entirely - and God knows I've got reason enough - but I got my buttons pushed in a passing read of the forums, with certain people posting untruths about Avenger. After all the crap I got becuase of people inventing rumours - or maybe just making stuff up to cause trouble - that's a bit of an issue for me.
Geez - another one of these. The T5 April Fools post has got to be one of the lamest, and most...
Oops, er, this was one of mine... :roll:
I did so many, I lost track - though this one was very mild - I didn't really say anything other than you could get your T5 copy over at the FarFuture site - its not like I said it was available now or anything *(it could happen, maybe... would have been, uh, funny, if it had).
Oops, er, this was one of mine... :roll:
I did so many, I lost track - though this one was very mild - I didn't really say anything other than you could get your T5 copy over at the FarFuture site - its not like I said it was available now or anything *(it could happen, maybe... would have been, uh, funny, if it had).
MJD said:
Hi,
I think that the current Book 2 High Guard gives a reasonable example of some of the potential issues between tables and equations.
If you look at the table on page 64 in the section entitled "Hull & Structure" its appears pretty clear that for determining Hull and Structure points per section the values are rounded to the nearest ton. However in the Captial Ship Design Example starting on page 69 using the equations for maneuver drives, power plant, fuel processors, and armored bulkheads for screens you see that for these calcs the authors take the results to the nearset 1/4 or in some cases tenth ton.
To me its not really clear what a 1/4 or tenth ton is supposed to represent especially on a 75,000 ton vessel and such a result seems much to precise to me. As such I would have probably rounded everything to the nearset ton myself, especially if doing the calcs by hand. However, if someone else were to use a spreadsheet or computer program, unless they carefully truncate intermediate results to either whole tons, 1/4 tons or tenth tons, its possible that their results will vary from mine a little. And since some calcs (especially costs and manning) are dependent on other calcs small variations in results may begin to compound.
In GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars the ship design process was even more complex than Mongoose High Guard, but the rules were (mostly) more clear on how to round, but if you weren't careful even for a small ship like the Type A Free Trader you could easily over allocate too much space to machinery (by not properly rounding) and thus have not as much space for cargo (as in the example data provided in the book) resulting in a ship with 10 tons or so less cargo but a couple MegaSolars more expensive, etc.
Regards
PF
Similar threads
