Thousand Ton Traders

[phavoc]

Yes, that is a fundamental flaw in the rules that has been perpetuated in every version. We have the technology today to put systems in standby/hibernation and reduce to near zero the use of resources.

A flaw in the name of broad playability. Not everyone wants to define a ship down to the bulkheads, life support routing, serving sized containers in the Galley, and kilowatt power draws, never mind the itemized insurance premiums.

Using your logic it would have been even more simpler to state life support costs on a per-person, per week basis. Instead the rules base it on staterooms NOT individuals, and don't double the costs when a stateroom is in double occupancy. So, call me silly, but that seems like over-complicating something with the use of non-linear logic.

If the goal was to make the calculations easy, then the designers intent failed. Per the MGT Core Rulebook definition of life support - Life Support: Covers oxygen generators, heating and lighting and other necessary life support systems.

Per the MGT Core Rulebook on life support costs: Life Support and Supplies: Each stateroom on a ship costs Cr. 2,000 per month, occupied or not. This cost covers supplies for the life support system as well as food and water, although meals at this level will be rather spartan. Each low passage berth costs Cr. 100 per month.

The first definition explains what is covered by life support from an engineering perspective. The second from a financial perspective. I would love to hear your explanation on the dichotomy between the two definitions. The first (engineering) is based upon actual usage. The second (costs) is based upon a random value assigned. Plus the second number makes no sense -- two people consume twice the air, water, and food that a single person does. Now, if that's "kilowatts and serving sizes"... sign me up for the fact buffet please!

I have no problem pointing out flaws in the rules. I guess some people have a problem with people pointing out problems that should be fixed.

 

[Condottiere]

With a fusion reactor, I would have thought heat incidental.

Probably any energy requirements that life support and gravitational plates needed.

So that would leave the actual cost of the oxygen scrubbers.

 

[F33D]

So that would leave the actual cost of the oxygen scrubbers.

O2 scrubbers at current our current TL cost NO where near that much. Plus at the TL's and power levels (fusion PPs) these ships are at you're looking at CO2 cracking. So, the costs listed make zero sense. Always have made no sense. Errata needed since the rule came out decades ago.

 

[Solomani666]

Oberlindes Lines Cargo Carrier Type CT in "Aramis The Traveller Campaign"

 

[phavoc]

I don't have that particular book. What in it are you referencing?

 

[F33D]

I don't have that particular book. What in it are you referencing?

Doesn't exist as a published ship in any material I posses ... No idea what he's on about.

 

[Reynard]

"It didn't help the game be more playable. It made it more nonsensical. That would be like a rule that charged a ship for buying cargo at every starport whether players wanted it or not. Talk about making weak excuses for lame rules."

Gee, it sounds like someone should be creating the ultimate Traveller ruleset with no errors, absolutely complete and sensible and based on reality. Come on people, it's only been 40 years! Why isn't that book in everyone's hands so everyone is playing? From the complaints and boasting, it should be so easy.

 

[F33D]

From the complaints and boasting, it should be so easy.

How would one do that when the IP is owned by a person who created T5? Are you living in a cave while taking copious amount of LSD or, did you get a brainectomy? It IS one or the other. Choose.

 

[phavoc]

"It didn't help the game be more playable. It made it more nonsensical. That would be like a rule that charged a ship for buying cargo at every starport whether players wanted it or not. Talk about making weak excuses for lame rules."

Gee, it sounds like someone should be creating the ultimate Traveller ruleset with no errors, absolutely complete and sensible and based on reality. Come on people, it's only been 40 years! Why isn't that book in everyone's hands so everyone is playing? From the complaints and boasting, it should be so easy.

Marc started GDW to make money. He put out a professional product for cold hard cash. If this were entirely crowd-sourced or just conversations in a forum then your point would be justified.

But that's not the case here, is it. If you bought a car and something was wrong you'd insist the manufacturer fix it, no? Much like the software industry, the gaming industry has continually been given free passes for errors. I don't expect them to be 100% every time. But I do expect them to at least attempt good quality control. Mongoose has had a spotty record throughout the Traveller series. I've never been shy about pointing that out, but I've also given them kudo's for their attempts to fix the most egregious of errors and try to make up for things. That's actually better than a lot of companies.

There are a number of rule issues that can be traced all the way back to the original source materials. And these problems have remained with the series. The only factor that remains constant is Marc and his licensing restrictions. Maybe it's something else, but it's certainly not publicly known. Things like the life support costs make no logical sense and they don't even follow internalized rules. While I'm not as, ah, fervent in my opinions as F33D is, there's nothing wrong with customers pointing out flaws in the goods they have purchased. No game publisher deserves a free ride from criticism just because it's "hard" to put out quality products.

There's another underlying issue here too. I have nearly all of my MGT materials in both hard copy and electronic form. While I understand the reluctance to issue new paper, there's really no reason why the electronic versions could not be updated and published with all the corrected errata included in them. But that is rarely done, unfortunately for the paying customer.

 

[F33D]

There's another underlying issue here too. I have nearly all of my MGT materials in both hard copy and electronic form. While I understand the reluctance to issue new paper, there's really no reason why the electronic versions could not be updated and published with all the corrected errata included in them. But that is rarely done, unfortunately for the paying customer.

Yes, given today's shaky econ in most of the Western world I am MORE than happy to get electronic errata. I am even happy to write it gratis (truly pro bono publico) for a company that I purchase games from. A la Mongoose...

 

[GypsyComet]

I don't have that particular book. What in it are you referencing?

Doesn't exist as a published ship in any material I posses ... No idea what he's on about.

The original topic of this thread: 1000 ton merchant vessels.

 

[wbnc]

"It didn't help the game be more playable. It made it more nonsensical. That would be like a rule that charged a ship for buying cargo at every starport whether players wanted it or not. Talk about making weak excuses for lame rules."

Gee, it sounds like someone should be creating the ultimate Traveller rule set with no errors, absolutely complete and sensible and based on reality. Come on people, it's only been 40 years! Why isn't that book in everyone's hands so everyone is playing? From the complaints and boasting, it should be so easy.

Easy is a deceptive word.... in 40 years the game has been reworked into multiple versions, with multiple systems, going back and smoothing out the inconsistencies, errors, and flaws would require...

1) you have to determine what is an error, flaw, or inaccuracy
2) determine if the flaw, inaccuracy etc is detrimental to the game, and if it is something that can be fixed without altering the game beyond an extent you are willing to accept.
3) you have to determine which fix you want to use.
4) determine if the fix causes unintended problems, or breaks other rules/mechanics.
5) edit, format, layout, and publish the fixes. and pay for all this work
7) publish, either in electronic, or print....

and most importantly find the money to pay people to do all the work listed above.....since you have to pay people to work even if the project falls flat or implodes...

Oh, and we could move all this somewhere else and let people talk about their stars ship ideas/desires/queries.

 

[Condottiere]

The reason for the popularity of a particular commercial tonnage/configuration is economies of scale.

The only one I know of is the twenty tonne bridge.

 

[Reynard]

What was the original quest... oh yeah, I got distracted. You can't really blame the Heavy Freighter for it's ungainly design. Its purpose is cheap and utilitarian with a dispersed configuration and is meant to serve cargo handling very straightforward. The Large freighter, with a standard configuration, makes an effort to serve more destinations though still has a design that prefers a highport with all the amenities.

Now we go to sexy with streamlining. As said earlier, a trader of any size that spend that extra cred for this configuration is a different beast. It is purpose built to go where no other freighter is designed to go. I still like the concept of frontier traders. Why else would your ship be able to arm for bear with 10 hardpoints? These ships are going deep into less travelled regions with lower tech level, smaller or no starports and possibly smaller population but all full of potential gain because others aren't exploiting these resources. These could also be called Colonial traders as they might be the right size to serve smaller settlements with few accommodations to attract larger vessels.

 

[phavoc]

...and most importantly find the money to pay people to do all the work listed above.....since you have to pay people to work even if the project falls flat or implodes...

Yeah, we already do pay for that. Amazingly some people have paid for it multiple times to get the same flaws and errors. That's just reasoning for sloppy work. I chipped in for the T5 kickstarter sight unseen. I got.... schlock. Just my opinion, but since I paid for it I get to express said opinion (unless you are on COTI boards, they don't like that).

What was the original quest... oh yeah, I got distracted. You can't really blame the Heavy Freighter for it's ungainly design. Its purpose is cheap and utilitarian with a dispersed configuration and is meant to serve cargo handling very straightforward. The Large freighter, with a standard configuration, makes an effort to serve more destinations though still has a design that prefers a highport with all the amenities.

Now we go to sexy with streamlining. As said earlier, a trader of any size that spend that extra cred for this configuration is a different beast. It is purpose built to go where no other freighter is designed to go. I still like the concept of frontier traders. Why else would your ship be able to arm for bear with 10 hardpoints? These ships are going deep into less travelled regions with lower tech level, smaller or no starports and possibly smaller population but all full of potential gain because others aren't exploiting these resources. These could also be called Colonial traders as they might be the right size to serve smaller settlements with few accommodations to attract larger vessels.

A question would be whether or not the freighter in question travels routes that have the orbital facilities to handle it. Large population worlds with Class C or D starports might not have much of an orbital infrastructure and the freighters could be more efficiently loaded/unloaded on the ground. Though, like you mention, it probably wouldn't be cost effective to streamline the ship for the most part. You can still refuel or land an unstreamlined ship using antigrav. It's just easier to maneuver in-atmo with it.

Merchant lines are going to be cheap, but also efficient and safety-oriented. So I could see a mix of ships depending on the financial viability of the line. After all these ships are going to be around for a while, so anything they can do to minimize risk (such as streamlining for easier handling characteristics) might not be a bad investment when spread over the operational life of the ship. Most individuals don't think decades into the future when purchasing something, but companies do (sometimes). But most of the time we are focused on the short-term, and three to five years seems like forever.

 

[F33D]

Easy is a deceptive word.... in 40 years the game has been reworked into multiple versions,

No, it isn't deceptive. In that 40 years feedback has been largely ignored. Even errata for MGT has been years sitting on an electronic shelf. Don, just last year, jumped on it as it was YEARS behind. Everything had been covered by fans. It is simply WILLINGNESS. T5 being a prime example. SCORES of people willing and more than able to help put together a superb product were IGNORED. The result was the absolute worst RPG roll out I've seen in ~40 years. What EXACTLY is difficult?

 

[F33D]

Now we go to sexy with streamlining. As said earlier, a trader of any size that spend that extra cred for this configuration is a different beast. It is purpose built to go where no other freighter is designed to go.

A freighter with streamlining can go no place that a freighter with a standard hull can go. Why pay the extra money?

 

[phavoc]

A freighter with streamlining can go no place that a freighter with a standard hull can go. Why pay the extra money?

Safety mostly. The standard hull CAN land and CAN refuel from a gas giant. But not as easily. Merchant ships, if they can, will employ crew that have sufficient skills, but not exceptional skills.

So depending on your route and delivery area, the streamlining can pay off. Regina is a good example. A planet in orbit around a gas giant. If the port was say Class D, the ship may, on it's way in, refuel in the gas giant and then start the fuel processing, fly to the planet, offload it's cargo, load any new cargo, and then depart. A streamlined ship would handle both the gas giant and landing much easier than the ship with a standard hull configuration.

It fits and makes sense, but without more data to go on it's gonna be a he-said/she-said style argument.

 

[dragoner]

1) you have to determine what is an error, flaw, or inaccuracy

Or Game Concept, the prices for operating the ships and the profits of trading, were originally done to keep the players poor so they had to go adventuring.

 

[Reynard]

Streamlining covers every opportunity under all conditions a ship can expect to encounter. It also makes landing much safer and that counts big time when you spend a lot of time at worlds featuring downports or no surface facilities and can never be sure about weather conditions on arrival. Sitting in orbit waiting for the weather to clear like we see with our Space Shuttle program is a waste of money. Slap on aerofins and you're quite confident.