Starship Economics Broken As Well...

[tbeard1999]

And the fact that starship costs are largely fixed means that it's possible that the total cost of making a Jump-4 is less than the total cost of making 2 jump-2's.

But if you actually work it out, it turns out that it isn't.

I'm not so sure about that. I just ran out 2 600 ton CT ships, 1 with jump-2 and 1 with Jump-4. The monthly expenses for the Jump 4 ship were KCr1,525.643. The monthly expenses for the Jump 2 ship were KCr1,039.275.

The J-4 ship takes half the time as the J-2 ship, so the J-4 ship's expenses are halved to determine the cost of the trip.

So, in terms of raw expenses, the Jump-4 ship is cheaper on one Jump-4 than the Jump-2 ship would be on two Jump-2s. KCr762 vs KCr1039.

It gets more complex because the Jump-2 ships can carry nearly twice the cargo as the Jump-4 ship. Unfortunately, the analysis stalls out due to the fact that both ships are bankrupt using CT starship economics.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>Ships just don't last more than a century

what part wouldnt make it ? ignoring upgrades etc we have airplanes that were built for WW2 still operating (usually safely) and today we have much better materials tech.

A DC3 built from modern materials should last a century if one built in haste during the 40s can last 60+ years ! With the regular overhaul process in traveller, Id expect any traveller ship to be "quite new" as all parts are slowly replaced, just like most modern aircraft.

>The big problem is that as the rules stand, there is no reason why is shouldn't be worth almost 100% even after 40 years. The maintenance costs are no higher, the risk of breakdown is no higher.

just like real life equipment, starship mainenance should be based on the "wear value". Brand new ships from megacorp shipyards would probably even have a 5 year warranty provided the maintenance schedule was carefully followed

 

[rancke]

I'm not so sure about that. I just ran out 2 600 ton CT ships, 1 with jump-2 and 1 with Jump-4. The monthly expenses for the Jump 4 ship were KCr1,525.643. The monthly expenses for the Jump 2 ship were KCr1,039.275.

The J-4 ship takes half the time as the J-2 ship, so the J-4 ship's expenses are halved to determine the cost of the trip.

So, in terms of raw expenses, the Jump-4 ship is cheaper on one Jump-4 than the Jump-2 ship would be on two Jump-2s. KCr762 vs KCr1039.

It gets more complex because the Jump-2 ships can carry nearly twice the cargo as the Jump-4 ship. Unfortunately, the analysis stalls out due to the fact that both ships are bankrupt using CT starship economics.

No, it doesn't. Simply figure out how many passengers the jump-2 ship carries in a year and divide the yearly expenses by that number. That will give you the realistic ticket cost of jump-2 shipping. Then divide by two to get the per-parsec cost. Repeat for the jump-4 ship except you divide by four to get the per-parsec cost. If you ship is a CT design, the results will be a bit different than the results I got from my T4 designs. I prefer T4 because CT has that ridiculous requirement for huge power plant fuel tanks. It's quite possible that one jump-4 jump is cheaper than two jump-2 with CT designs.

The problem with that is that (IMO) there's only one OTU. CT designs are significantly different from T4 designs. One (or both ) of them MUST be wrong for any single universe. They can't both be right at the same time. Which one to chose? The one where fusion power plants burn off ridiculous amounts of fuel every four weeks or the one where fusion plant fuel consumption is a lot more plausible? I know which one I prefer.


Hans

 

[Anthony]

So, in terms of raw expenses, the Jump-4 ship is cheaper on one Jump-4 than the Jump-2 ship would be on two Jump-2s. KCr762 vs KCr1039.

It gets more complex because the Jump-2 ships can carry nearly twice the cargo as the Jump-4 ship.

That's not really adding complexity. Simply divide expenses by (cargo capacity * jump range) to get cost per ton-parsec, which is the basic figure you need.

 

[aramis]

Given the numerous flaws in other aspects of the game, my generousity is exhausted.

Your "generosity" appeared exhausted before you even opened the files.

I've noticed several small (but siginficant) changes based upon player input.

Now, Draft 3.1 to 3.2 was no change (but some additions), but 3.0 to 3.1 had a number of small changes.

1 to 2 had a significant number of changes, and 2 to 3 quite a few.

 

[Ishmael]

It seems to me that one should work out the macro-economics of trade partners (PE style or even just the method from striker or TCS ) in order to have a decent guess at supply and demand. That in turn should give a clue as to trade volume and thus cargo availability and price, not just for buying cargo/speculation, but expense goods too. Otherwise, any numbers you use would be as good as any other numbers..choose ones you like.

the same conditions won't be in place in all locations, so the prices expenses won't be either.

 

[tbeard1999]

Your "generosity" appeared exhausted before you even opened the files.

I've noticed several small (but siginficant) changes based upon player input.

Care to identify these "significant" changes?

 

[sablewyvern]

Care to identify these "significant" changes?

Not all of these necessarily qualify as significant, but, off the top of my head:

NCO ranks added
Changes to promotion and automatic muster out system
Suvival rolls modified
Skill tables adjusted
Burst fire rule added
Hexadecimal notation added
+3 Characteristic DM moved from E to F
Employer coverage of medical expenses added
Use of expert systems to aid existing skills simplified
Neural links for use of physical expert systems removed

 

[tbeard1999]

That's not really adding complexity. Simply divide expenses by (cargo capacity * jump range) to get cost per ton-parsec, which is the basic figure you need.

Yep, you're right. Long day...

Anyhow, I re-ran my designs (ships identical except for drives; 50% of cargo space devoted to staterooms) and here are the critical facts:

1. The Jump-4 ship's expenses for a single jump are KCr 817.3875. The Jump-2 ship's expenses for a single jump are KCr 598.674.

2. The Jump-2 ship can carry about twice the cargo and passengers of the Jump-4 ship.

3. The Jump-2 ship can carry 2x the cargo as the Jump-4 ship for about 73% of the cost and at 50% of the speed per jump.

4. The Jump-2 ship will deliver 2 "units" of cargo for a total expense of KCr 1197.149 in 2 jumps. The Jump-4 ship will deliver 1 unit of cargo in 1 jump for 817.3875, or 2 units of cargo in 2 jumps for 1634.775 (36.5% more).

So, in CT, the Jump-2 ship is significantly more economical, if time is not a factor. Looks like Ranke and I were both wrong; he argued that two Jump-2's cost a little less than one Jump-4. Of course, he's arguing about T4 designs, so he could be right in that case.

Anyhow, this exercise does point out that proportional per-parsec pricing (i.e., Cr8000 per parsec) does not accurately reflect the costs. In this case, for instance, the cost of a Jump-4 ticket should be about 36.5% more than 2 Jump-2 tickets.

 

[tbeard1999]

Not all of these necessarily qualify as significant, but, off the top of my head:

NCO ranks added
Changes to promotion and automatic muster out system
Suvival rolls modified
Skill tables adjusted
Burst fire rule added
Hexadecimal notation added
+3 Characteristic DM moved from E to F
Employer coverage of medical expenses added
Use of expert systems to aid existing skills simplified
Neural links for use of physical expert systems removed

Do *any* of them qualify as significant?

What significant changes to the game's mechanics can you identify?

 

[tbeard1999]

The problem with that is that (IMO) there's only one OTU. CT designs are significantly different from T4 designs. One (or both ) of them MUST be wrong for any single universe. They can't both be right at the same time. Which one to chose? The one where fusion power plants burn off ridiculous amounts of fuel every four weeks or the one where fusion plant fuel consumption is a lot more plausible? I know which one I prefer.

Well, you have your handwavium, I have mine. I prefer the imaginary starships of CT to the imaginary starships of T4. Not interested in debating which imaginary starships are better.

That said, if power plant fuel is your big problem, this wouldn't change the economics much. In my examples, my starships burned 20 or 40 tons of power plant fuel per jump. If *all* of this spce were devoted to cargo instead, annual revenue for the J-2 ship would increase by 3.71%. Annual revenue for the J-4 ship would increase by 16%.

In CT (or T4, I suspect), these ships would still be bankrupt.

 

[sablewyvern]

Do *any* of them qualify as significant?

What significant changes to the game's mechanics can you identify?

Changes to the survival and promotion rules do have a significant impact on the viability of multiple terms in the same career, and the number of skills you gain. NCO ranks significantly alter the style of character you can emerge with. The expert system aiding rules make smart weapons and similar actually viable. Removal of neural links significantly alters the default setting.

But really, their actual significance is always going to be a matter of perspective, to some degree or another.

Significant changes to the mechanics include capping/uncapping Effect rolls, and changing damage to xEffect from +Effect. I don't consider those significant improvements, though (at the time, I thought the move to xEffect for damage was, but I have since changed my mind).

It's certainly false to say the designers haven't taken a lot of feedback on board and made real changes. It's true that they appear uninterested in significant changes to the core resolultion mechanic.

You've got a lot of legitimate gripes, tbeard, I don't see why you need to work so hard at arguing fringe cases or bitching about their forum moderation policies.

 

[tbeard1999]

Changes to the survival and promotion rules do have a significant impact on the viability of multiple terms in the same career, and the number of skills you gain. NCO ranks significantly alter the style of character you can emerge with. The expert system aiding rules make smart weapons and similar actually viable. Removal of neural links significantly alters the default setting.

But really, their actual significance is always going to be a matter of perspective, to some degree or another.

Well, most of these "changes" seem more in the nature of "editing".

Significant changes to the mechanics include capping/uncapping Effect rolls

The rolls started out uncapped and according to Mongoose, they will remain uncapped. No change there.

and changing damage to xEffect from +Effect.

I already noted that this was a change. However, this change was mentioned at the time v1.0 of the playtest rules were posted, so the evidence indicates that the designers had already decided to make it. And as noted, it didn't meaningfully alter the results--though it is more fussy, which seems to be a core design goal.

It's certainly false to say the designers haven't taken a lot of feedback on board and made real changes.

So far, no one has produced much in the way of substantive changes.

You've got a lot of legitimate gripes, tbeard, I don't see why you need to work so hard at arguing fringe cases or bitching about their forum moderation policies.

<shrug>

The same might be said about you. Why are expending so much energy to defend them from every one of these "fringe cases"?

Pot, kettle, etc., etc.

 

[sablewyvern]

Like I said, significant is going to be a matter of editing. Given the heated discussion over the potential introduction of NCO ranks, there were clearly a number of people who considered it a significant decision, for better or worse.

Effect rolls were capped for one iteration of the playtest document, before being changed back.

And, I'm making the effort because I think some of your accusations are spurious, and I don't want third parties forming opinions based on those accusations, without an opportunity to see an alternative perspective. As to why I'm in this thread specifically, it's because I saw a question you had asked, which I assumed was a genuine one, and for which I had an answer.

 

[tbeard1999]

And, I'm making the effort because I think some of your accusations are spurious, and I don't want third parties forming opinions based on those accusations, without an opportunity to see an alternative perspective.

Well, you sure seem committed to defending Mongoose from virtually *every* charge, including what you've sneeringly characterized as "fringe cases". And I really can't see much difference between you and what you claim I am. In fact, one of the few constants here is that *any* thread criticizing Mongoose will contain an immediate defense of Mongoose from you.

If I were truly arguing "fringe cases", I think that you'd not bother defending them. What's the old line...you protest too much?

In any case, someone who leaps to Mongoose's defense at *every* opportunity is ill-placed to sneer at someone else for being overly aggressive in attacking them. Fanaticism is fanaticism, whether pro or con.

Effect rolls were capped for one iteration of the playtest document, before being changed back.

So, like I said, no change.

Looks to me like MGT is gonna go to press with virtually *no* major changes from v1.0 of the playtest (other than damage). In fact, it might be interesting to see how many mechanics were "changed" after v1.0 only to be changed back later...

And if I am right that virtually no major changes were made, what does this say about Mongoose's actual responsiveness to criticism?

 

[robject]

>Ships just don't last more than a century

what part wouldnt make it ? ignoring upgrades etc we have airplanes that were built for WW2 still operating (usually safely) and today we have much better materials tech.
[...]
just like real life equipment, starship mainenance should be based on the "wear value". Brand new ships from megacorp shipyards would probably even have a 5 year warranty provided the maintenance schedule was carefully followed

The hull, and presumably everything in it.

I like the warranty idea.

The Darrians module practically said it, actually by stating that TL16 is where starship materials can be reliably maintained for 1,000 years, but below that they've got perhaps 100 years.

There's an in-game reason ships don't last: if they lasted a century, they'd last forever, and we don't want perfect ships.

That's it: we don't want them, in the same way we want aging rolls for people. It's not that it follows or doesn't follow materials science, but that we want to know that entropy is biting our heels.

 

[robject]

It seems to me that one should work out the macro-economics of trade partners (PE style or even just the method from striker or TCS ) in order to have a decent guess at supply and demand.

I created a rule of thumb ten years ago to do this. Take a pair of worlds, and tally up points (plus and minus) based on trade codes and TL. Multiply those two resulting numbers together, and you've got a "trade index" which could be used to imply shipping volumes.

 

[tbeard1999]

There's an in-game reason ships don't last: if they lasted a century, they'd last forever, and we don't want perfect ships.

That's it: we don't want them, in the same way we want aging rolls for people. It's not that it follows or doesn't follow materials science, but that we want to know that entropy is biting our heels.

I agree. I also note that modern aircraft like the B-52 are still flyable 50 years later because nearly every component except the airframe has been replaced, in some cases several times. And major components of the airframe are often replaced as well. If you replace virtually all the components of a vehicle over (say) 40 years, you'll end up paying at least as much as the vehicle costs.

Traveller starships do not ordinarily pay for such "service life extension programs".

In the case of a MCr40 free trader, such a program would likely add Cr1 million per year in amortized costs. This is 25 times the annual maintenance costs for that ship (and would bankrupt the ship's operator).

Of course, materials science might well be up to building ships that can last for centuries without significant additional expense. But that universe would look very different than the OTU, in my opinion. For one thing, new starship companies would be unable to compete with established companies that had already paid their ships off centuries ago.

And I'd add that the maintenance cost of Traveller starships is already extremely low -- 1/1000 of the purchase price per year. That's about 1/20 the annual maintenance cost of my truck.

 

[sablewyvern]

Well, you sure seem committed to defending Mongoose from virtually *every* charge, including what you've sneeringly characterized as "fringe cases". And I really can't see much difference between you and what you claim I am. In fact, one of the few constants here is that *any* thread criticizing Mongoose will contain an immediate defense of Mongoose from you.

If I were truly arguing "fringe cases", I think that you'd not bother defending them. What's the old line...you protest too much?

Look, you asked what significant changes had been made. I pointed some out, and when queried further, admitted that "significant" was subjective. When I said "fringe case" I was, in this instance, specifically referring to your apparent need to define every change as objectively insignificant. That's all.

In any case, someone who leaps to Mongoose's defense at *every* opportunity is ill-placed to sneer at someone else for being overly aggressive in attacking them. Fanaticism is fanaticism, whether pro or con.

I have already in this thread indicated that you have legitimate gripes. I have cross-posted some of your observations to the Mongoose boards because I considered them valuable criticisms. I have stated that I do not like the official implementation of T/E, to the point where I have developed my own system, that I will use in place of the official one - because I agree with your assessment of the official system as statistically flawed. My earlier comment in this thread regarding ship shares did not dispute your basic assessment of the ownership structure we currently have is seriously flawed. I have commented on other areas of the rules I think are poorly done (I am truly bemused that they are going to stick with the crap-shoot combat move rule they currently have).

So, like I said, no change.

I have already explicitly agreed there has been no worthwhile change to the mechanics.

Looks to me like MGT is gonna go to press with virtually *no* major changes from v1.0 of the playtest (other than damage). In fact, it might be interesting to see how many mechanics were "changed" after v1.0 only to be changed back later...

And if I am right that virtually no major changes were made, what does this say about Mongoose's actual responsiveness to criticism?

Again, I agree they've done little to nothing to fix the basic mechanic. Some attempts seem to have been made, but nothing significant.

As I tried to say in another thread, but may not have articulated very well, I am very happy with MGT -- but not because I think their official mechanic works well, or because they have run an amazingly successful and useful playtest.

I like the character generation a lot, and I'm hoping ship construction turns out well. Beyond that, what I really like is the basic concept of the T/E mechanic, and some of structures they've built around that. That concept has provided me with the inspiration to build what I believe is a markedly superior system objectively, and which certainly is subjectively.

So, yeah, I'm happy, but I doubt it's for the reasons Mongoose would want me to be.

 

[Foxroe]

There's an in-game reason ships don't last: if they lasted a century, they'd last forever, and we don't want perfect ships.

There's also a simple economic reason. Ship builders need to make money. They just can't survive as a business if their products lasted forever. If they did build them to last, then they would have to charge way more for them in order to maintain a profit. However, not too many people or businesses would be willing to pay the price for a starship that will outlast their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids.

-Fox