EDG said:captainjack23 said:1. I'm not simply disagreeing with your suggestions,(which I am doing, too) , I'm saying that your effort/approach is a bad idea and an uneccessary waste of time and effort; and may mess up the game more than it corrects.
My "better suggestion" is this: leave it alone, and don't fiddle for the sake of fiddling. Personal opinion.
This is a playtest though - you can't just say "I don't think that'll work" and not suggest anything better. I firmly believe my suggestions will improve the trade classifications and will not mess up the game (at least no more than adding these passenger and trade rules that are untested and different to all the other editions of the game anyway).
Yes, actually, I can, and I did. You've certainly given yourself that right in the past (and present), so I'll take it too. I do have a better suggestion. in this case, No change = better. Playtest doesn' t simply mean "rewrite everything".
I guess the bottom line is that I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that your model is in any way more or less arbitrary than that of Gar or MWM...or me. Sorry !
As to the In world issue , I see the difference in our points. You see In as much closer to a norm, and a planet which is industrial. Me, I've always assumed than almost all imperial planets above thech 4 will be descriped as industrial - but the In code is for those that stand out excessively in a particular way...which is what the uWp codes define.
Thanks for keeping it civil, though. Although the codswallop comment was uneccessary. I do know the soc lit. It doesn't address what planets with non-terran atmospheres and non-terran population levels need; nor what vaccume worlds need. Nor ammonia ocean worlds. Nor dark forbidding industrial hives with barren vistas and toxic atmospheres...beyond LA, Chicago and Detroit, I guess....(so maybe you do have a point there....:wink: )
...no data, that is, unless the Hivers have been busy with time machines, the bastards.....
That said, I agree that we (as in you and me) are done with this discussion.