matrix cypher
SOC-12
id rather be a heretic then a luddite
FFS3 for T5
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I simply imagine that the mass/volume within the jump field is not counted for affecting the actual jump. Only stuff outside the jump field. So no ship, no matter how massive/large interferes with it's own jump, even if that "ship" is a world in its own right. It will however impose the usual effects on other ships trying to jump too close to it and be affected by massess when it tries to jump.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
These days, how many Traveller players don't have easy access to a computer? And of those, how many would be interested in ship designing?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I've never used a computer program to design a ship... 
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
But you could.
rhoneycutt
SOC-11
Trader Scott:
Yep...Heretics aren't afraid to go against the accepted norm to try different ideas as luddites are.
as an aside...I beleive that there MUST be a very detailed foundation for making vehicles from starships to scateboards...even if all its used for is to make 'standardized' stuff to put in tables...but let people have the option of seeing the underlying design rules at least.
Yep...Heretics aren't afraid to go against the accepted norm to try different ideas as luddites are.
as an aside...I beleive that there MUST be a very detailed foundation for making vehicles from starships to scateboards...even if all its used for is to make 'standardized' stuff to put in tables...but let people have the option of seeing the underlying design rules at least.
I run counterpoint to Shere: I feel that there must NOT be a highly detailed layer, since that will generally result in marginalization of player-designers as opposed to gearheads, since gearheads will be able to build superior ships EVERY time.
I'd rather see HG as the basis, or better, t20's ship design as the basis for ship designs.
I'd rather see HG as the basis, or better, t20's ship design as the basis for ship designs.
matrix cypher
SOC-12
Bah ive seen some pretty lousy designs from gearheads and some pretty simple and elegent designs by players (as if gearheads arnt players too)
and besides specialists or experts would should design better ships then the average joe. why no have the tools to do so.
if you need a custom ship have some one else design it for you if you can not yourself??
matrix cypher
SOC-12
oh by the way i do like the t20 design system and im a gearhead.
some times i just like to use a simple system too, i just like having the option of a more detailed variant.
the thing is make sure that the simple system and the generic system are based on the same baseline system. so that they are compatible.
some times i just like to use a simple system too, i just like having the option of a more detailed variant.
the thing is make sure that the simple system and the generic system are based on the same baseline system. so that they are compatible.
These days, how many Traveller players don't have easy access to a computer? And of those, how many would be interested in ship designing? </font>[/QUOTE]I have access to a computer, and I will never design starships with it... unless it's part of an MMORPG.
I have a computer science degree, and half of an Operations Research master's. I had my share of physics with calculus, statistics, linear algebra, discrete math, you-name-it, I jumped through their hoops. I'm a veteran programmer with a half-dozen C-derived programming languages under my belt... plus a little machine language, and a little Smalltalk. I've had three computers for at least six years now. I've written some starship design programs. But I've never once wanted to design Traveller starships with computers. Always prefer Book 2, and tolerate High Guard.
Traveller is a game. The more it feels like homework, the less fun it is. If this is a game for 35-year-old graduate students, it's not going to attract 12-year-olds; nor will it attract people who don't like math in general. Want to make Traveller narrow? Force everyone to use equations that the physicists use. Force everyone to use Excel, or some specialized computer program.
I love designing starships with Book 2. Even with its severe limitations, it's complete and elegant. There's something about it.
Take the percentage of Travellers who are gearheads, subtract from 100, round down the 1's digit, and you'll get a good first-order rough approximation of the percentage of people who don't want to design Traveller starships with computers.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I'd prefer to design ships by hand anyway. My favourite system is LBB2 - although I have been known to house rule a few bits
matrix cypher
SOC-12
I think you may under estimate kids now days. my niece in 2nd grade is learning basic algebra. heck shes one bright cookie and so are her friends that live across the street.
matrix cypher
SOC-12
You know i just got to thinking.
i remeber when i was first playing traveller and was working on some stuff back in 78-79 in highschool.
my parrents thought i was working on homework. lol
i think a little work is always rewarded. Heck dont make it too simple.
make it well easily understandable. you can have a moderately decent system. and if you make the explanation and examples of it simple it would be alright.
does that make sence
i remeber when i was first playing traveller and was working on some stuff back in 78-79 in highschool.
my parrents thought i was working on homework. lol
i think a little work is always rewarded. Heck dont make it too simple.
make it well easily understandable. you can have a moderately decent system. and if you make the explanation and examples of it simple it would be alright.
does that make sence
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything in any specific way; on the contrary, I want to give people a choice - a detailed system, a simplified version, and ready-made ships.
You're saying the system needs to be dumbed down because people don't have easy access to computers, but I'm pointing out that that's no longer true.
You choose not to use tools designed to make your life easier, but many others do use them.
matrix cypher
SOC-12
These days, how many Traveller players don't have easy access to a computer? And of those, how many would be interested in ship designing? </font>[/QUOTE]I have access to a computer, and I will never design starships with it... unless it's part of an MMORPG.
I have a computer science degree, and half of an Operations Research master's. I had my share of physics with calculus, statistics, linear algebra, discrete math, you-name-it, I jumped through their hoops. I'm a veteran programmer with a half-dozen C-derived programming languages under my belt... plus a little machine language, and a little Smalltalk. I've had three computers for at least six years now. I've written some starship design programs. But I've never once wanted to design Traveller starships with computers. Always prefer Book 2, and tolerate High Guard.
Traveller is a game. The more it feels like homework, the less fun it is. If this is a game for 35-year-old graduate students, it's not going to attract 12-year-olds; nor will it attract people who don't like math in general. Want to make Traveller narrow? Force everyone to use equations that the physicists use. Force everyone to use Excel, or some specialized computer program.
I love designing starships with Book 2. Even with its severe limitations, it's complete and elegant. There's something about it.
Take the percentage of Travellers who are gearheads, subtract from 100, round down the 1's digit, and you'll get a good first-order rough approximation of the percentage of people who don't want to design Traveller starships with computers. </font>[/QUOTE]i like lbb2 and high guard and MT system, I liked the TNE system also but thats about the complexity im talking about. High gaurd and MT are not that bad. If MT had been layed out a little better with a step by step explanation it would of been allot better (oh yeh and better edditing)
hmmm why not have a simple system like lbb together with something like MT. Basically the LBB system is used for designing the modular standard design ships ( cheaper and faster to build) and an MT like system that allows for custom ship design. (more expensive and takes longer to build)
both should use the same baseline ( you should be able to replicate the same size weight performance of the lbb system with the mt like system (though it would be more expensive)
this make any sence?
rhoneycutt
SOC-11
Aramis: I strongly disagree with your position. The whole point of a detailed layer at the bottom is not neccessarily to allow gearheads to 'munchkinize' their ships or optimise things in favor of a player's choice to use a simple design sequence, but to allow a consistant and repeatable method of design on all levels. The same with weapon design sequences. More information is good, even if the info isn't used. Aka, what is the frontal area and ballpark drag coefficient of a type 'S'...what is its stall speed? how would its performance change if a variant was lengthened by 10 meters? Thats the sort of questions a complex sequence could answer.
Punching numbers into a spreadsheet isn't too hard is it? You know there will be spreadsheets.
Such a system would allow gearheads with computers to have their fun, and, providing that simple design rules match the complex ones is final results, allow non-gearheads to whip up designs from table-running. Heck, let gearheads 'design' new components to add to simple design-tables even.
And I still say that everything should be mass based and not just volume based. But thats just my opinion and way of doing things....
Punching numbers into a spreadsheet isn't too hard is it? You know there will be spreadsheets.
Such a system would allow gearheads with computers to have their fun, and, providing that simple design rules match the complex ones is final results, allow non-gearheads to whip up designs from table-running. Heck, let gearheads 'design' new components to add to simple design-tables even.
And I still say that everything should be mass based and not just volume based. But thats just my opinion and way of doing things....
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything in any specific way; on the contrary, I want to give people a choice - a detailed system, a simplified version, and ready-made ships.
You're saying the system needs to be dumbed down because people don't have easy access to computers, but I'm pointing out that that's no longer true.
You choose not to use tools designed to make your life easier, but many others do use them. </font>[/QUOTE]Ha! Oh Andrew, I'm not saying that FFS2 ought to be chucked, nor do I think that access to computers is part of the point at all. On the contrary, I think that the more ubiquitous computers become, the more important it is to be able to do without them.
Traveller is a pencil-and-paper game. I feel about starship design the same way I feel about chargen and mainworld gen. One can automate them, and in some circumstances it's preferable to do that, but the simple rules keep the game playable. So the simple rules ought to be reasonably simple.
intent or not, the result is that those who use the detailed design systems do not generally produce designs comparable to the simple systems. This was true in T4, especially since the simple systems had numerous abstractions that resulted in wasted space.
It creates a wider gulf between the Gearheads and non-gearheads, and results in the simpler system being seen as "broken" and/or not worthwhile by many more than will use the detailed system.
Any sequence that detailed is beyond the realm of playability without computer augmentation.
From the standpoint of non-simulationist GMing, that kind of information is a waste of time and paper, and merely serves to discourage those who might otherwise use the TA system.
And I've yet to see an FF&S spreadsheet that implements it all. In fact, every time I've broken out FF&S(1) spreadsheets, I've had to go and add some item that was overlooked.
The additional detail for the very few comes at the expense of making the system inherently unfriendly for the rest.
And, while many Traveller players see FF&S as a triumph, many critics cite is as the major FLAW. MT was overly complex, for many, in its design sequences, and was not quite an order of magnitude easier.
Further, another strike against detailed design systems is the massive increases in potential errors with added details and complexities. Of the 200 or so ships I wrote up for MT (20 or so being Type S variants alone), 50 required corrections upon review by others due to mistakes, and 50 due to errata issues. Of the 50 or so FF&S1 designs, all required corrections by others reviews.
This working from the books, using a spreadsheet for calcs, and double checking for errors.
Using HG, only about 5% of my designs had elements overlooked, and most of those were not invalidating errors, merely "Shouldn't there also be a ____"
