EDG said:
It doubles the probably from what value and to what value though?

I suspect that we're not talking about space suddenly being filled with In worlds, but rather that it's gone from something like 2% to 4%. Which isn't really a big deal.

Its a probability. It doubles the probability that any given planet will be type In.

As to absolute %, I haven't run it yet....but, consider the conditional probability per subsector....that will go way up with 40 iterations even if it is a bump from 2% to 4%. And the individual probability change (in this case double) is the minimum change in the expected result.

Conditional probabilites are generally poorly considered or understood. A famous example (to me, at least) is in the old comuter game of harpoon. There was somthing like a 1% chance per game second of picking up a false echo of a sub when none was present: which meant that one got several false reports every minute; way more than the liklihood of detecting a sub when surfacing or damaged at minimum range. AND annoying as hell.

captainjack23 said:
pasuuli said:
Well, Ga *does* seem a little thin...

Okay, yeah.

Actually sitting down and looking at the values, it turns out that as regards passangers, Ga worlds are significantly different from Ag worlds after all. They are the same for freight, which is puzzling.

Plus, there are some pretty good distinctions about what you can buy and sell at a Ga vs an Ag world- certainly enough to make differentiating them reasonable - also, FWIW, it looks like a "garden world" isn't simply earthlike, theres kind of a "spa" sensibility to them, it seems. More of a vacation world than a colony.

That said, it does need better differention from Ag as regards to its uWp criterea. Possibly a tech or starport criterea would be interesting additiona - and eliminating the taint atmospheres.

I'm thinkin some more on it....

captainjack23 said:
Its a probability. It doubles the probability that any given planet will be type In.

Right... but we still need to know what that is for your comment to be meaningful.

As to absolute %, I haven't run it yet....but, consider the conditional probability per subsector....that will go way up with 40 iterations even if it is a bump from 2% to 4%. And the individual probability change (in this case double) is the minimum change in the expected result.

Conditional probabilites are generally poorly considered or understood.

English please? . My stats knowledge is pretty basic, I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to "conditional probability".

I find that the problem with stats is you can basically use them to say anything you like (at least, if you just present your own interpretation and don't show the original numbers for people to judge themselves).

A famous example (to me, at least) is in the old comuter game of harpoon. There was somthing like a 1% chance per game second of picking up a false echo of a sub when none was present: which meant that one got several false reports every minute; way more than the liklihood of detecting a sub when surfacing or damaged at minimum range. AND annoying as hell.

OT, but if it's 1% per second, shouldn't you have just got an average of 1 ping per 100 seconds? Or was it somehow cumulative?

EDG said:
If you look at In and Hi, you'll see that according to the 3.2 (and CT) rules any In worlds are automatically Hi as well since both have pop 9+. Look at the passenger tables and you'll see that if you have an "In Hi" world, then you have a net modifier of +5/+2. So apparently, people really want to get off In Hi worlds but people are still keen to migrate to them (positive DM in both cases). If (as I suggest) you widen the pop range of the In worlds to pop 7+ then In worlds suddenly aren't necessarily Hi as well - now an In world has a modifier of +2/+1, which means there isn't such a massive exodus away from them.

An interesting question arises. Do trade modifiers stack ? I've always worked on the assumption that its a "pick the best one" situation, not a combination. I note that 3.2 doesn't specify one or the other...what about CT ?
If I've been wrong for the last 30 years (and never even been questioned), then I owe a few bankrupt merchant players a bit of an apology......

captainjack23 said:
An interesting question arises. Do trade modifiers stack ?
AFAIK, yes, they do stack. In the past, when ever players have become engaged in trade, I've stacked the DMs. I've had a look at both the trade systems for CT (LBB 2 and LBB 7) - the DMs appear to stack in both systems, although there's nothing specifically to say that they do or don't.
I've always worked on the assumption that its a "pick the best one" situation, not a combination. <snip> If I've been wrong for the last 30 years (and never even been questioned), then I owe a few bankrupt merchant players a bit of an apology......
Best nip allong to your local branch of the Imperial Bank and start paying out to those merchants, Cap'n

EDG said:
the Mongoose table even gets the In code wrong - Book 6 defines it as atm 0,1,2,4,7,9 (not 2-4, 7-9!)
It looks like they've gone with the MegaTraveller parameters for the In TC (this is taken from the table in the first post of this thread):
Code:
``````TC  Sp   Sz         At   Hy   Pp  Gv  Lw  TL   References
In*  -    -  0-2,4,7,9    -   9+   -   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7
In*  -    -    2-4,7,9    -   9+   -   -   -   MT``````

Gruffty the Hiver said:
EDG said:
the Mongoose table even gets the In code wrong - Book 6 defines it as atm 0,1,2,4,7,9 (not 2-4, 7-9!)
It looks like they've gone with the MegaTraveller parameters for the In TC (this is taken from the table in the first post of this thread):
Code:
``````TC  Sp   Sz         At   Hy   Pp  Gv  Lw  TL   References
In*  -    -  0-2,4,7,9    -   9+   -   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7
In*  -    -    2-4,7,9    -   9+   -   -   -   MT``````

Seems somewhat inconsistent of them since they've been using CT definitions for everything else... (and they also claim that atm 7 TO 9 is In, which would include atm 8 which has never been included in any definition).

EDG said:
captainjack23 said:
Its a probability. It doubles the probability that any given planet will be type In.

Right... but we still need to know what that is for your comment to be meaningful.

Nah. You need to know the math....here:

The quick version:

Probability (In) = Prob(atmos codes) * Prob(pop code)

Prob of pop code 9+ = 3/36
Prob of pop code 8+ = 6/36.

So, delta (prob(pop code)) = 2,
and
Probability (In) = Prob(atmos codes) * 2(Prob(pop code)) and
= 2(Prob(atmos codes) * Prob(pop code))

I haven't finished the big ass conditional summation needed to plug numbers in yet...the MAN expects me to occasionally do some work, the bastard.
As to absolute %, I haven't run it yet....but, consider the conditional probability per subsector....that will go way up with 40 iterations even if it is a bump from 2% to 4%. And the individual probability change (in this case double) is the minimum change in the expected result.

Conditional probabilites are generally poorly considered or understood.
English please? . My stats knowledge is pretty basic, I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to "conditional probability".

"conditional" is the probability of A given B. which is equal to prob(A)* prob(B) if independent ....(and Size and pop are independent in the above example)
I find that the problem with stats is you can basically use them to say anything you like (at least, if you just present your own interpretation and don't show the original numbers for people to judge themselves).
[/quote]
Dude. This is math. Statistics is what you make of it. 8) And if it fools you... you may as well blame the words in a lie if you don't question what is said.

Oh. And I hope you aren't implying that I am fibbing......

A famous example (to me, at least) is in the old comuter game of harpoon. There was somthing like a 1% chance per game second of picking up a false echo of a sub when none was present: which meant that one got several false reports every minute; way more than the liklihood of detecting a sub when surfacing or damaged at minimum range. AND annoying as hell.

OT, but if it's 1% per second, shouldn't you have just got an average of 1 ping per 100 seconds? Or was it somehow cumulative?

Exactly wrong. This is a frequency assessment, not an average. It doesn't sum, per se, but it inflates.

Flip a coin twice. What are the odds that you'll get at least one head ? 75%. what are the odds you'll get at least one ping every minute ? 1-(.1^60)

The rate of multiple hits is the inverse. trust me, you get lots more than 1 per 100 secs. In fact ONLY 1 per 100 seconds is a pretty unlikely result.

To avoid casting a sleep spell on the audience, I'll answer this more fully via pm to EDG unless otherwise requested to be a pedantic boor. :wink:

Gruffty the Hiver said:
captainjack23 said:
An interesting question arises. Do trade modifiers stack ?
AFAIK, yes, they do stack. In the past, when ever players have become engaged in trade, I've stacked the DMs. I've had a look at both the trade systems for CT (LBB 2 and LBB 7) - the DMs appear to stack in both systems, although there's nothing specifically to say that they do or don't.
I've always worked on the assumption that its a "pick the best one" situation, not a combination. <snip> If I've been wrong for the last 30 years (and never even been questioned), then I owe a few bankrupt merchant players a bit of an apology......
Best nip allong to your local branch of the Imperial Bank and start paying out to those merchants, Cap'n

CRAP !!!!!!

Well, good thing I can print my own money.......

Gruffty the Hiver said:
Hivers: If you tolerate us, then your children will be next....

Wait. Does that mean if I don't tolerate you now , I then won't tolerate my children later ?

Gruffty the Hiver said:
captainjack23 said:
An interesting question arises. Do trade modifiers stack ?
AFAIK, yes, they do stack. In the past, when ever players have become engaged in trade, I've stacked the DMs. I've had a look at both the trade systems for CT (LBB 2 and LBB 7) - the DMs appear to stack in both systems, although there's nothing specifically to say that they do or don't.
I've always worked on the assumption that its a "pick the best one" situation, not a combination. <snip> If I've been wrong for the last 30 years (and never even been questioned), then I owe a few bankrupt merchant players a bit of an apology......
Best nip allong to your local branch of the Imperial Bank and start paying out to those merchants, Cap'n

Actually, Grufty, T20 has a blanket statement somewhere (I remember the discussion on it during development) that all modifiers stack in T20 unless noted otherwise.

AKAramis said:
Gruffty the Hiver said:
captainjack23 said:
An interesting question arises. Do trade modifiers stack ?
AFAIK, yes, they do stack. In the past, when ever players have become engaged in trade, I've stacked the DMs. I've had a look at both the trade systems for CT (LBB 2 and LBB 7) - the DMs appear to stack in both systems, although there's nothing specifically to say that they do or don't.
I've always worked on the assumption that its a "pick the best one" situation, not a combination. <snip> If I've been wrong for the last 30 years (and never even been questioned), then I owe a few bankrupt merchant players a bit of an apology......
Best nip allong to your local branch of the Imperial Bank and start paying out to those merchants, Cap'n

Actually, Grufty, T20 has a blanket statement somewhere (I remember the discussion on it during development) that all modifiers stack in T20 unless noted otherwise.
Yup, I remember reading that in the T20 book. I've never played T20 meself, not being a fan of the d20 system (I got the T20 book due to my obsessive collecting condition). I should have made it clearer in my original answer that I was referring only to CT trade rules.....not entirely sure what a T20 rule has to do with CT, but hey, I'm just a Hiver.....

captainjack23 said:
Gruffty the Hiver said:
Hivers: If you tolerate us, then your children will be next....

Wait. Does that mean if I don't tolerate you now , I then won't tolerate my children later ?
....possibly, but we leave no evidence behind, you will have no proof, you'll never really know any tiny part of the truth and no-one will believe you if you tell them.............. :twisted:

Ahem...My sig on these boards is a transmogrification of a line from a Manic Street Preachers song (called, oddly enough, "If You Tolerate This, Then Your Children Will Be Next"). The song is about the Spanish Civil War, the song title from a propoganda poster that shows a dead child with planes above. Guess what the caption on the poster reads........deep sadness at mans' inhumanity towards innocents ........

Gruffty the Hiver said:
AKAramis said:
Gruffty the Hiver said:
AFAIK, yes, they do stack. In the past, when ever players have become engaged in trade, I've stacked the DMs. I've had a look at both the trade systems for CT (LBB 2 and LBB 7) - the DMs appear to stack in both systems, although there's nothing specifically to say that they do or don't.Best nip allong to your local branch of the Imperial Bank and start paying out to those merchants, Cap'n

Actually, Grufty, T20 has a blanket statement somewhere (I remember the discussion on it during development) that all modifiers stack in T20 unless noted otherwise.
Yup, I remember reading that in the T20 book. I've never played T20 meself, not being a fan of the d20 system (I got the T20 book due to my obsessive collecting condition). I should have made it clearer in my original answer that I was referring only to CT trade rules.....not entirely sure what a T20 rule has to do with CT, but hey, I'm just a Hiver.....

It uses the same methodology for trade.

AKAramis said:
Gruffty the Hiver said:
....not entirely sure what a T20 rule has to do with CT, but hey, I'm just a Hiver.....

It uses the same methodology for trade.
Thanks for clarifying that, Aramis

Every In world will be Hi, by definition, but not every Hi will be an In.

Hi is POP=9+
In is POP=9+ and certain atmospheres.

So every Industrial world is automatically a Hi population world.

Just like every Lo population world is Non-Industrial.

Given those two conditions, I don't see how you can justify stacking their bonuses, unless the person statting the Lo and Hi bonuses remembers the other one.

In the original CT (through LBB 6 at least) Hi and Lo were not trade classifications, they were added later (maybe LBB7?). When they were added, I wonder if the people adding them really thought about the stacking DMs or not?

Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Every In world will be Hi, by definition, but not every Hi will be an In.

Hi is POP=9+
In is POP=9+ and certain atmospheres.

So every Industrial world is automatically a Hi population world.

Just like every Lo population world is Non-Industrial.

Given those two conditions, I don't see how you can justify stacking their bonuses, unless the person statting the Lo and Hi bonuses remembers the other one.

In the original CT (through LBB 6 at least) Hi and Lo were not trade classifications, they were added later (maybe LBB7?). When they were added, I wonder if the people adding them really thought about the stacking DMs or not?

But, seems reasonable. High pop world, and Industrial to boot.

Replies
1
Views
122
Replies
8
Views
336
Replies
5
Views
284
Replies
20
Views
428
Replies
7
Views
314