WBH Hydrographics for A-C atmospheres

[Dodo98]

@Geir Sorry to bother you again, but I have another question, this time about determining hydrographic codes. I have a world with a corrosive (B) atmosphere, which has subtype (E) Extremely Dense. The optional rule “Exotic Liquids” on page 102 explains that for worlds with atmospheres A-C, you could use the subtype code (which in this case would be (E) or 14) instead of the normal atmosphere code (in this case B). So I thought, I would have +14 for the Atmosphere, -4 for Atmosphere Code B and -6 for Boiling, which would equal to a +4 DM. However, once I saw the example on page 103, I wasn't so sure anymore. The example also gives us a corrosive (B) atmosphere and subtype (D) Extremely dense. So basically the same prerequisites as in my case. But the example explains, that it uses a +11 for Atmosphere, since the extremely dense subtype will not change its code factor. And this is the part, where I get lost. Why are we using +11 instead of + 13? I haven't found an answer to this question in the rules.

The other example for the cold world is clearer. We have an exotic atmosphere (A) but use the subtype (7) as the DM.

So how do I determine when to use the 'normal' atmosphere code and when to use the subtype code?

 

[Limpin Legin]

So how do I determine when to use the 'normal' atmosphere code and when to use the subtype code?

Page 102, Optional Rule: Exotic Liquids suggests that it is purely the referees choice which atmosphere/subtype code is used in determining the hydrographic code.

 

[Dodo98]

Page 102, Optional Rule: Exotic Liquids suggests that it is purely the referees choice which atmosphere/subtype code is used in determining the hydrographic code.

Whether this rule is applied is at the discretion of the referee, I agree with you there. But if the rule is applied, there must be a consistent logic as to whether the normal code A, B, or C is used or the subtype code. And I haven't really recognized that logic yet.

 

[Geir]

@Geir Sorry to bother you again, but I have another question, this time about determining hydrographic codes. I have a world with a corrosive (B) atmosphere, which has subtype (E) Extremely Dense. The optional rule “Exotic Liquids” on page 102 explains that for worlds with atmospheres A-C, you could use the subtype code (which in this case would be (E) or 14) instead of the normal atmosphere code (in this case B). So I thought, I would have +14 for the Atmosphere, -4 for Atmosphere Code B and -6 for Boiling, which would equal to a +4 DM. However, once I saw the example on page 103, I wasn't so sure anymore. The example also gives us a corrosive (B) atmosphere and subtype (D) Extremely dense. So basically the same prerequisites as in my case. But the example explains, that it uses a +11 for Atmosphere, since the extremely dense subtype will not change its code factor. And this is the part, where I get lost. Why are we using +11 instead of + 13? I haven't found an answer to this question in the rules.

The other example for the cold world is clearer. We have an exotic atmosphere (A) but use the subtype (7) as the DM.

So how do I determine when to use the 'normal' atmosphere code and when to use the subtype code?

Bearing in mind that it's late and I might have had a bit of whiskey, referring to my notes and reading what I thought I meant...

You have a point. The intent was to allow for a more realistic modeling (with 'realistic' being a complete guess based on two data points: Venus and Titan) of thinner Corrosive and Insidious atmospheres - hence the comment that using the optional rule could result in lower Hydrographic values. So what I had in mind was using a lower value than the 'B' indicated if the atmosphere wasn't too thick.

However, it doesn't say that, so either the explanation is incomplete (needing the extra wording: 'use the lower of the Atmosphere Code or the subtype code') or the example needs to change to allow the use of the subtype regardless. I'm leaning towards the latter of these choices, so if using the subtype always use the subtype, because it's a cleaner rule.

 

[Dodo98]

Bearing in mind that it's late and I might have had a bit of whiskey, referring to my notes and reading what I thought I meant...

You have a point. The intent was to allow for a more realistic modeling (with 'realistic' being a complete guess based on two data points: Venus and Titan) of thinner Corrosive and Insidious atmospheres - hence the comment that using the optional rule could result in lower Hydrographic values. So what I had in mind was using a lower value than the 'B' indicated if the atmosphere wasn't too thick.

However, it doesn't say that, so either the explanation is incomplete (needing the extra wording: 'use the lower of the Atmosphere Code or the subtype code') or the example needs to change to allow the use of the subtype regardless. I'm leaning towards the latter of these choices, so if using the subtype always use the subtype, because it's a cleaner rule.

Okay, thank you. I will follow the second option, which is to always use the subtype. This should result in more liquid on planets with very dense atmospheres, which I don't think is unrealistic. A denser atmosphere shifts the boiling point of liquids and could therefore ensure that even extremely hot worlds have liquid. Something like a Hycean World, for example.

 

[Dodo98]

@Geir I may have found another error (or maybe I'm not doing it right) but the formula to determine Oxygen Fraction on page 81 and the Example on page 82 do not seem to match. The formula gives two options, and it appears the Example is using the first option (1D+DMs/20+2D-7/100+1D-1/20). However, the example then uses only the first two parts of the formula, omitting the part with 1D-1/20.

In addition, the rule text below the DMs states, that a value between 0-0.4 will be created (or lower with some of the DMs). But if I use the first option, I can calculate a maximum value of 0.65.

 

[Geir]

@Geir I may have found another error (or maybe I'm not doing it right) but the formula to determine Oxygen Fraction on page 81 and the Example on page 82 do not seem to match. The formula gives two options, and it appears the Example is using the first option (1D+DMs/20+2D-7/100+1D-1/20). However, the example then uses only the first two parts of the formula, omitting the part with 1D-1/20.

In addition, the rule text below the DMs states, that a value between 0-0.4 will be created (or lower with some of the DMs). But if I use the first option, I can calculate a maximum value of 0.65.

Interesting. The third term is not in my final word document, so it is not supposed to be there.
And it would give a number too high by far if added. So that's another for the errata pile. I'll add it.

Thank you for noticing it.

I have no idea if this document will ever get reprinted (I image if the physical copies were all sold out and there was still a demand, then maybe - not clued in on that part of the business), but an updated PDF might be something I can lobby for, since it's up to 20 different errors now (plus I want to sneak in a Benford's Law option for population first digits).

 

[Dodo98]

Interesting. The third term is not in my final word document, so it is not supposed to be there.
And it would give a number too high by far if added. So that's another for the errata pile. I'll add it.

Thank you for noticing it.

I have no idea if this document will ever get reprinted (I image if the physical copies were all sold out and there was still a demand, then maybe - not clued in on that part of the business), but an updated PDF might be something I can lobby for, since it's up to 20 different errors now (plus I want to sneak in a Benford's Law option for population first digits).

Thanks for clarifying.

Could you maybe publish the known errata here or somewhere else? An updated PDF of the rulebook would of course be best, but even a simple Word document with all known errors would be appreciated

What is Benford's Law and what will it change?

 

[Geir]

Thanks for clarifying.

Could you maybe publish the known errata here or somewhere else? An updated PDF of the rulebook would of course be best, but even a simple Word document with all known errors would be appreciated

What is Benford's Law and what will it change?

I put a new thread in the Feedback section with the whole list:

Thread 'Consolidated World Builders Handbook know issues.'

Monday at 3:00 AM

By request.

And rather than add to page nine of a half-dead thread, I'm going to post my list of the running WBH Errata on this fresh thread:

-------

p. 34 orbit data for Cab (C) should be from Ca, not Cb. Also fix on p. 63 and 140.

p. 55 gas giant diameters and masses. Make mass formula related to diameter result (use it or a derivation as the multiplier constant) with a possible DM for HZCO.

p. 57 given the Significant Moon Sizing table, and the wording of the paragraph that follows, clarify what happens with Size 1 and 2 worlds – consider a re-write of that paragraph.

p. 70...

• Geir
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Feedback

• 

There's a link to the wikipedia article on Benford's Law down towards the bottom.
Basically, when looking at 'random' numbers for things with have certain distributions, for instance of values that increase at a similar rate over time, you're much more likely to have a lower first digit (e.g. there should be lots more planets of POP 6 with populations starting with 1 million rather than 9 million)

 

[rinku]

Just keep in mind that the difference between 1 million and 9 million is rarely of any practical matter. Especially when it relates to how it affects an individual. Or hundreds of them.

 

[Geir]

Just keep in mind that the difference between 1 million and 9 million is rarely of any practical matter. Especially when it relates to how it affects an individual. Or hundreds of them.

The place where I think it's important is on Pop A worlds. A single 80 billion person planet can skew the entire sector.
Given the initial roll of 2D-2 gives a mean of POP 5, I'd probably only apply Benford's Law on POP 6+, so it only affects the top half of the distribution.

 

[Galadrion]

I still think a better (or simpler, anyway) simulator for Benford's Law would be ABS (2D6-2D6), with a result of 0 being set to 1 and a result of 10 being set to 2. But it's a trivial difference, overall.

 

[CordwainerFish]

What, we can't all conveniently generate random floating point numbers and raise 10 to real powers?

 

[rinku]

The place where I think it's important is on Pop A worlds. A single 80 billion person planet can skew the entire sector.
Given the initial roll of 2D-2 gives a mean of POP 5, I'd probably only apply Benford's Law on POP 6+, so it only affects the top half of the distribution.

While that's true, a single 10 billion one can as well. But I take the point.

Benford's Law is best applied at the top end and the low end of things. It does become important to know if a town has 10 or 99 people, for example. In the middle of a set of ranges it makes much less difference.

 

[Endie]

What, we can't all conveniently generate random floating point numbers and raise 10 to real powers?

Yeah I didn't invest in this server connected to a camera that points at 100 lava lamps just to use D6s for random numbers like a Roman peasant.

 

[rinku]

You may as well be using sheep knuckles.