Will you buy Mongoose Traveller when released?

[Dyrewulf]

I preordered some time ago...and glad I did, as family economy issues right now would preclude it for a while.

and, FWIW, I like your perspective on the issue(s)

I just see it as Traveller is many people's love child...it has had many years to be tweaked by EVERYONE...and everyone wants to add their 2cents in this project...but the thing people keep missing is...Mongoose has the rights...and it isn't like they have been close minded about the process, infact they have been VERY gracious about allowing us to help in the development.
I just really think some people need to get together with some friends and play some Hackmaster or something...you know, go play a game for fun and try to remember why you play games...remember it is supposed to be a hobby.

 

[captainjack23]

Did you change it ?

Becuase what I see is:

OK, don't vote. Nobody is going to cry or care if you don't.

Jeeze. Who spat in your sherbert ? I was honestly thinking that you had changed it, given your post.

Okay, you wrote the questions, so I guess what you want to know is: "Do I support the view that if MGT isn't Totally Perfect as judged by critics of the system, not those who after all are partisans of, and loyal to, mongoose press, I'll refuse to buy it." So, I guess I don't support that. I'll vote yes.

I like the stuff you produce, but man, are you a mixer.

 

[JRMapes]

I will be in the minority here (of course that is not surprising considering the territory).

I voted no.

I have no use for a rehash of a rules set I already own, especially if it has gaps in the system, questionable rules, and fiddly stuff added to it that if I or my groups really wanted tagged on then we most likely would have house ruled them in sometime in the past 25 years. Besides, I seriously doubt MG has ever considered long time Traveller players and refs a part of the target market they are shooting for. So my decesion to not buy the core books likely won't register as a lost sale.

However I will keep an eye on some of the supplements that come out, especially those done by MJD from Comstar Games. I am buying his Spinward Marches supplement and odds are I will buy others he/they do. I know from past experience that I can be assured of darn good work when his/their name is attached. Same can be said of BITS if they do work for the system.

Jerry

 

[Allensh]

I will be buying the game very eagerly, and am looking forward to seeing what has been done to change certain things, but all in all I am happy with the game.

Allen

 

[JRMapes]

Did you change it ?

Becuase what I see is:

OK, don't vote. Nobody is going to cry or care if you don't.

Jeeze. Who spat in your sherbert ?

Gee maybe it had to do with your incessant moaning about the wording and what looks like your reading far more into it than what is is.

Rah Rah Boo Hiss Phfffffft

...if I vote the direction of my choice,, I can expect to enjoy the sight of it being used to support something I probably won't agree with.

paranoid much?

:roll:

Its a simple up or down vote.
Don't like it, make up your own super scientific poll worded like you would prefer.

jeesh

:roll:

 

[AKAramis]

Allso rules are still missing a number of things. Small ship design for one. Drop tanks and external cargo pod use needs to be addresed ( they can change the nature of wars and trade ) and are part of cannon.

I'm curious: where in prior canon are external cargo pods? I've never encountered them.

And drop tanks canonically can be droped during the jump process... they are destroyed by so doing, but hey, them's the breaks.

 

[captainjack23]

OK, don't vote. Nobody is going to cry or care if you don't.

Jeeze. Who spat in your sherbert ?

Gee maybe it had to do with your incessant moaning about the wording and what looks like your reading far more into it than what is is.

Rah Rah Boo Hiss Phfffffft

...if I vote the direction of my choice,, I can expect to enjoy the sight of it being used to support something I probably won't agree with.

paranoid much?

:roll:

Its a simple up or down vote.
Don't like it, make up your own super scientific poll worded like you would prefer.

jeesh

:roll:

One frikken question is incessent ? ONE ? And paranoid to boot ? Okay, by that criterea, yeah, I guess I am out of line. Plus, I only post super-scientific polls when I'm in my alter-ego -"SUPER SOCIAL SICENTIST" (logo is "S3" tm). Sorry to disappoint a fan.

In any case, I voted, and, as others did, qualified my vote.
So, its kind of a dead issue you're trying to start a fight over. May I suggest that you post comments about TNE or lightspeed pebbles if you want a good argument ? You'll be gratified, I'm sure.

 

[captainjack23]

Allso rules are still missing a number of things. Small ship design for one. Drop tanks and external cargo pod use needs to be addresed ( they can change the nature of wars and trade ) and are part of cannon.

I'm curious: where in prior canon are external cargo pods? I've never encountered them.

And drop tanks canonically can be droped during the jump process... they are destroyed by so doing, but hey, them's the breaks.

The closest I remember is in the LBB book tarders and gunboats (???) or the one about bigger ships. One version had an external jump net you could cram stuff in and expand the effective displacement -I know there was a farily coherent article about pod in specific, but I think it was on a website - possibly by Ken Pick.

 

[AKAramis]

Allso rules are still missing a number of things. Small ship design for one. Drop tanks and external cargo pod use needs to be addresed ( they can change the nature of wars and trade ) and are part of cannon.

I'm curious: where in prior canon are external cargo pods? I've never encountered them.

And drop tanks canonically can be droped during the jump process... they are destroyed by so doing, but hey, them's the breaks.

The closest I remember is in the LBB book tarders and gunboats (???) or the one about bigger ships. One version had an external jump net you could cram stuff in and expand the effective displacement -I know there was a farily coherent article about pod in specific, but I think it was on a website - possibly by Ken Pick.

That ship was designed for the max size, and rated for smaller sizes. I reverse engineered it back in the 1980's. Not really external cargo pods, just a redefinition of the hull form...

 

[captainjack23]

I'm curious: where in prior canon are external cargo pods? I've never encountered them.

And drop tanks canonically can be droped during the jump process... they are destroyed by so doing, but hey, them's the breaks.

The closest I remember is in the LBB book tarders and gunboats (???) or the one about bigger ships. One version had an external jump net you could cram stuff in and expand the effective displacement -I know there was a farily coherent article about pod in specific, but I think it was on a website - possibly by Ken Pick.

That ship was designed for the max size, and rated for smaller sizes. I reverse engineered it back in the 1980's. Not really external cargo pods, just a redefinition of the hull form...

Yeah, pretty much a dispersed hull with minimum retooling time for additions.

One possibility is it's derived from the ability of some ships to have external mounts for small craft (the type R), or as a use for drop tanks when not used for some such. Good question though. Are the challenge mags canon ? I'm pretty sure it isn;t in the JTAS issues.

 

[Supplement Four]

Jeeze. Who spat in your sherbert ?

You came across quite pissy yourself, and since that wasn't the first time you've replied to me like that...

But, I see you've edited your post. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, you wrote the questions, so I guess what you want to know is: "Do I support the view that if MGT isn't Totally Perfect as judged by critics of the system, not those who after all are partisans of, and loyal to, mongoose press, I'll refuse to buy it." So, I guess I don't support that. I'll vote yes.

Actually, what I was asking in the poll isn't that complicated. It just means: (A) you intend to buy MGT, or (B) you won't be buying it.

Nothing sinister. It's a simple poll. Will you buy it or not? That's all I'm asking. Those who want to add to their answer can write in the thread.

I like the stuff you produce, but man, are you a mixer.

I'm not sure I know what a "mixer" is. From connotation, it seems like it's not a good thing.

 

[captainjack23]

Jeeze. Who spat in your sherbert ?

You came across quite pissy yourself, and since that wasn't the first time you've replied to me like that...

But, I see you've edited your post. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, you wrote the questions, so I guess what you want to know is: "Do I support the view that if MGT isn't Totally Perfect as judged by critics of the system, not those who after all are partisans of, and loyal to, mongoose press, I'll refuse to buy it." So, I guess I don't support that. I'll vote yes.

Actually, what I was asking in the poll isn't that complicated. It just means: (A) you intend to buy MGT, or (B) you won't be buying it.

Nothing sinister. It's a simple poll. Will you buy it or not? That's all I'm asking. Those who want to add to their answer can write in the thread.

I like the stuff you produce, but man, are you a mixer.

I'm not sure I know what a "mixer" is. From connotation, it seems like it's not a good thing.

Not per se. Just someone who stirs things up. Not inherently bad, at all.

 

[captainjack23]

Jeeze. Who spat in your sherbert ?

You came across quite pissy yourself, and since that wasn't the first time you've replied to me like that...

But, I see you've edited your post. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks. Pm sent.

 

[Knightsky]

As much as I want to say 'yes', I voted 'no' in the poll. Partially because of some of the other reasons that others have brought up - certain rules seem to be getting the go-ahead, despite questions about all of the ramifications thereof - but also it is in spots a bit too fiddly for me. I like my Traveller fast and streamlined, for the most part. Many of the things I see in the playtest that make me uncertain aren't necessarily bad rules, they just aren't to my particular taste.

Mind you, I voted 'no' to picking it up immediately... not necessarily to ever picking it up (the poll really could have used a few more options). If I see some good reviews from players who aren't part of the playtest, that may well sway me. I may also wait for a 2nd printing, so that some of the kinks can get worked out.

Until then, I'll probably do with MGT the same thing I did with MT and T4... take bits and pieces that I like, and house rule them into my CT game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Mind you, I voted 'no' to picking it up immediately... not necessarily to ever picking it up (the poll really could have used a few more options). If I see some good reviews from players who aren't part of the playtest, that may well sway me. I may also wait for a 2nd printing, so that some of the kinks can get worked out.

This goes for me, too. I am quite negative on MGT, but that's because I feel the game deserves it based on what I've seen.

Let me say, though, my negative bias stems from disappointment. The game is not what I was hoping it would be (the definitive, bestus, most-incredible-us version of Traveller ever seen). In my heart, I wanted to convert. I wanted to jump on board. I wanted to see it succeed.

But, from what I've seen of MGT, it doesn't deserve my vote.

Now...as Knightsky said...If they change some things...If they actually turn this thing around and make something G-R-E-A-T out of it down the road, 2nd edition or so, then you can count me in. I'll jump on board then.

But, not until the game deserves it.

 

[captainjack23]

Mind you, I voted 'no' to picking it up immediately... not necessarily to ever picking it up (the poll really could have used a few more options). If I see some good reviews from players who aren't part of the playtest, that may well sway me. I may also wait for a 2nd printing, so that some of the kinks can get worked out.

This goes for me, too. I am quite negative on MGT, but that's because I feel the game deserves it based on what I've seen.

Let me say, though, my negative bias stems from disappointment. The game is not what I was hoping it would be (the definitive, bestus, most-incredible-us version of Traveller ever seen). In my heart, I wanted to convert. I wanted to jump on board. I wanted to see it succeed.

But, from what I've seen of MGT, it doesn't deserve my vote.

Now...as Knightsky said...If they change some things...If they actually turn this thing around and make something G-R-E-A-T out of it down the road, 2nd edition or so, then you can count me in. I'll jump on board then.

But, not until the game deserves it.

One thing to consider, is that I'm pretty sure the final will look quite different from this version (3.2), as we haven't seen an update of the pre-worldgen rules for quite a while, and Gar has been pretty neutral about what he is going to be changing - probably a good thing, given the potential for chaos.

That said, part of why I'll buy it is 1. I already have it on preorder :wink:
2. sheer burning juvenile curiosity about the final version, and 3, because I suspect I'll like it. But If not for 1, I'd probably skim and then decide....

Aw who am I kidding. I'm a junkie for my favorite lines..... I bought Cthuluteck for cripe' sake -it's great, turns out, but I pretty much bought it sight unseen based on Cthulu + Mecha = FUN...

 

[Dyrewulf]

That said, part of why I'll buy it is 1. I already have it on preorder :wink:
2. sheer burning juvenile curiosity about the final version, and 3, because I suspect I'll like it. But If not for 1, I'd probably skim and then decide....

Aw who am I kidding. I'm a junkie for my favorite lines..... I bought Cthuluteck for cripe' sake -it's great, turns out, but I pretty much bought it sight unseen based on Cthulu + Mecha = FUN...

Most people here own or have created the rules that they use for Traveller anyways. So it boils down to buying it for fan appreciation...or having another set of rules you can utilize in your game.

 

[EDG]

I probably won't get it, but not because I dislike it (though I might pick it up if my worldgen rules end up in there, just to show that off ) . It's just more that I don't really need it - I've got enough versions of Traveller, I'm happiest with TNE and GT and I don't need more.

But I wish it luck, and I'm sure it'll do well - and I may well end up picking up some supplements for it anyway. Or even writing a few via the OGL...

 

[Zowy]

Your right, I don't think there are rules spelled out for external cargo pods in CT. I remember now we added them from Supplement 7 ( Traders and Gunboats ) extrapolation. The Close Escort had 100-ton disposable fuel tanks. The SDB has a 200-ton jump shuttle. The Cutter was given 30 ton modules. From there it was only a small step to expand on the idea of carrier / tender type ships with external pods and ship racks. 8)

Edit: Found it.....

Adventure 4 Leviathan

Page26: Major Variations.

Fuel and Cargo pods.

She had couplings on H deck and could have two 300-ton demountable fuel pods and a 200-ton cargo pod.

 

[Mac V]

I voted yes, but it's actually a maybe.

I've never played Traveller, but would like to. Thing is, my group isn't too interested. So, not having ever owned the books, I might pick up the main book for the read, then look for a group IF it hooks me.

The other reason it's a maybe, is I've learned to alway wait for the revision wth Mongoose. Sorry, no offense. I do love this company, but I still have $100 of BFE minis that didn't look better in person.... :?