Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?

[hunter]

I can't seem to get a full copy - if it's the 'multiquote' feature, it doesn't seem to do anything for me. <shrug> Not to worry, it's no great loss.

Use the Reply function and then use the quote tags to surround the text you want quoted.

For example

[quote]quoted text here[/quote]

Would create

quoted text here

The multiquote function is for quoting from multiple posts.

 

[RandyT0001]

According to MJD there will not be any major changes and/or tweaks to the SM data. A particular set will be used as a basis for his work as decided by MWM and Mongoose.
http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=1648&start=32

 

[Supplement Four]

According to MJD there will not be any major changes and/or tweaks to the SM data.

I read the thread, and it looks likes there won't be any changes (not just major changes) to OTU SM data.

This is good news, indeed.

 

[far-trader]

I read the thread, and it looks likes there won't be any changes (not just major changes) to OTU SM data.

This is good news, indeed.

UWP half full kinda guy eh S4? :smirk:

I just can't see how no changes can be a good thing when there are nothing but changes through each of the preceding canon examples of the Marches. At least the more glaring errors could, nay SHOULD have been allowed to be corrected.

...but c'est la vie, I'm not surprised, only disappointed.

 

[Supplement Four]

At least the more glaring errors could, nay SHOULD have been allowed to be corrected.

If you look at the list of changes posted in that linked thread above, you might be shocked at the number of worlds that were going to be changed. I was surprised. I thought we were only talking about a couple.

I'm very glad OTU won't be messed with.

 

[far-trader]

If you look at the list of changes posted in that linked thread above, you might be shocked at the number of worlds that were going to be changed. I was surprised. I thought we were only talking about a couple.

I'm very glad OTU won't be messed with.

No shock at all, I've been aware of most if not all those mentioned and the sources of the differences (most of them anyway) for quite a while. That's why I was for fixing them

See, I read the poll results as 2/3rds are aware of the problems and would like to see them fixed, for the very sake of canonicity, consistency, and conformity; everything the other 1/3rd who are not aware of the scope of the problem feel will be lost by changing anything. But that's just me (and a marginal majority), and as noted it's not our call anyway, the choice has been made, we'll live with it as we have for all the years that the problem has been there...

 

[jrmapes]

Which thread?

This One?

http://www.traveller.comstar-games.c...=1648&start=32

If so then you may be misreading those posts latter in the thread. I Think those are just FYI comparison posts of differences between various sources.

The original criteria is found in this post

http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?p=14476&highlight=#14476

It would have made a number of changes - more then a few but not overly sweeping, mostly to world size - but far fewer "other" changes aside typos and such.

All are things that most people here and elsewhere have pointed out for years that needed fixed. I can understand why some would not like to see broad changes and to a point can see why a few would not want to see any changes.

But it is all just empty discussion now I suppose since Marc has made a decesion on changing the OTU data.

I did see your post on doing UWP's by era - I haven't had a chance to read it yet though - hasn't that already been done from version to version?

What I see as the big question for us CT guys is which UWP data is the real UWP data. We have sectors in the LBBs including at least one or two adventures. Then we have the SMC.

What is aggravating is that even amongst a common era many of the UWPs don't match up. So what then?

Do we use the oldest published sectors as their baseline (Supp3) then the next in line to be published and so on till we get to the SMC and correct the SMC with the older data. Or... do we just use the SMC? Or... do we mix and match? Obviously ignoring all the blatant errors across all versions.

See, I really don't think we will ever have a set of UWP's from any era that everyone will agree with. Even with Marc setting his foot down for the MGT UWP's only Marc and few people will completely agree. Heh.

Then of course you have those like myself that would love to see a set of UWPs for 1105 that agree with the books and adventures .... plus fixed stellar data and the worst of the worst "impossible" worlds fixed as long as it doesn't contradict official published descriptions from the LBBs or Adventures. Hell I would even at this point to be willing to forget about the worst of the worst impossible worlds if the stellar data would be fixed (which has been done - finally got the list of corrections - yahoo!)

But it seems at this point the only groups that has correct UWPs is (I think) the 1248 material and the the Gateway material (not sure about Gurps). So it looks like to me all of us T4 and earlier are pretty much left up to sussing out whats what based solely on personal preference. Not that this is terrible bad - it just makes for compounded inconsistencies that after 30 years we really shoudl already have moved past.

Jerry

 

[far-trader]

I will grant this, the oddities and errors, in UWPs and other material, has supported a great many, long (and sometimes heated) "debate" for many of us over the decades

Maybe that's the secret behind Traveller's staying power. Maybe Marc knows full well what he's doing by preserving for us the contentious mysteries and we are fools for asking for it to be fixed

 

[atpollard]

I read the thread, and it looks likes there won't be any changes (not just major changes) to OTU SM data.

This is good news, indeed.

Especially for all of those tiny worlds (size 1 -3) with thick atmospheres that were in danger of having their sizes bumped up (to 4, I think). What were they thinking! HOW COULD ANYONE ADVENTURE IN THE MARCHES AFTER A CHANGE LIKE THAT!!!

...It just would not be the same place. :nonono:

[remove tongue from cheek]

I find the entire subject to be a tempest in a teapot.
Arthur

 

[Icosahedron]

Use the Reply function and then use the quote tags to surround the text you want quoted.

For example



Would create


The multiquote function is for quoting from multiple posts.

Thanks Hunter, I think I've got it now, drawing from both your post and Hans'. Obvious with hindsight - nested quotes by nested brackets? Time will tell.

Of course, I now have that 'no parse' thingy to think about.
And I've yet to make a successful compilation from multiple posts using the multi quote.

 

[hunter]

And I've yet to make a successful compilation from multiple posts using the multi quote.

Click the Multiquote button on each post you want to quote (and you can do this across multiple pages) and then hit the Post Reply button.

 

[Supplement Four]

There is a small checkbox in the upper right corner of each post. Check off the posts you want to quote (and you can do this across multiple pages) and then hit the multiquote button.

Hmm...I'm not seeing the small checkbox. What is it next to (just in case I'm blind)?

Upper right hand corner has post number then the "report post" button. Above that is display modes menu. Above that is the thread pages.

I don't see a small check box, though.



And... While we're on this, where is the menu to put in the smile icons and whatnot? Do I have to know the key strokes? Or, is there a menu for them?

 

[hunter]

Hmm...I'm not seeing the small checkbox. What is it next to (just in case I'm blind)?

Doh, sorry. Hit the Multiquote button on each post you want to quote then hit the Post Reply button. I updated my original post.

And... While we're on this, where is the menu to put in the smile icons and whatnot? Do I have to know the key strokes? Or, is there a menu for them?

Use the 'Go Advanced' button when you make a reply or post.

 

[Supplement Four]

Use the 'Go Advanced' button when you make a reply or post.

I hit "Go Advanced", but I still see no menu for smile icons. There's the post icons that appear next to the title of my post--but where is the list of smileys to put in the body?

 

[hunter]

I hit "Go Advanced", but I still see no menu for smile icons. There's the post icons that appear next to the title of my post--but where is the list of smileys to put in the body?

To the right where it says Smilies. Check your Control Panel settings as well. You may not have the advanced editor selected.

 

[Foxroe]

Call up this link in a separate window/tab:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/misc.php?do=getsmilies&editorid=vB_Editor_001

Normally I click on "Post Reply" at the bottom left of the thread and the smilies are on the right on the new page. Clicking on the "more" sends you to the link above.

-Fox

 

[Supplement Four]

You may not have the advanced editor selected.

Ah, it was my editor settings. Thanks!

:rofl:

 

[rancke]

But what's best for you and your game may not be best for me and mine.

Perhaps not. I'd love a few examples, though. In what way was the changes to the populations of Hofud, Dyrnwyn, Durendal, and Sting bad for you and yours? What problems would changing some world sizes cause you? What problems would changing some starports cause you? What changes do you fear Mongoose would wreak on you Spinward Marches?

Most importantly, why would any changes anyone wreaks on the OTU version of the Spinward Marches affect your Spinward Marches, unless you yourself apply them to your TU? Please show me the mythological "gun" that Isocahedron and Supplement 4 speaks of (since they're apparently not going to).



Hans

 

[rancke]

You don't recognize the gun you're holding. Yep. That's what I mean to say, too.

Ah, excellent! You recognize it! Then maybe you can explain to me just what this "gun" is and how it works. As I said to Isocahedron, talking about guns, even metaphorical ones, appears completely over-the-top to me.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Ah, excellent! You recognize it! Then maybe you can explain to me just what this "gun" is and how it works. As I said to Isocahedron, talking about guns, even metaphorical ones, appears completely over-the-top to me.

Let's not take this discussion into a "tone" where we're arguing with malice. I want to make sure you understand that just because I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I think you're an evil person, pull the legs off of kittens, and everything you say is something that should be ignored.

I don't mean to come across that way at all, and I apologize if I do. I simply disagree with you on this issue (and, some "like" issues in the past).



But, to answer your questions, the "gun" Ico was speaking of is that you were in a favored position to force through the changes you thought were needed. You had the ear of the right people. That's the "gun".

I thought that was clear from Ico's post.





I'm glad no changes are going to be made, but I will tell you that, if changes were going to be made, I'd hope it would be just the things like raising the size of a world in accordance with the atmo (I guess changing the atmo would be a bigger change). I would be totally against changing the pop codes and govt codes, TL's, Starports, and things like that just because of whatever reason the writers felt that the Spinward Marches 1105 data should be changed. That's wrong. And, they've got the "gun" on us who don't want it changed.