<shameless plug>
...which is a concept Traveller5 has borrowed, probably from TNE... and T20 has it, too, I think (they both generically call it "Quality").
</shameless plug>
Starship Economics Broken As Well...
- Thread starter tbeard1999
- Start date
<shameless plug>
...which is a concept Traveller5 has borrowed, probably from TNE... and T20 has it, too, I think (they both generically call it "Quality").
</shameless plug>
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
For starships, I think I'd use "service life" as a guide to maintenance costs and fair market value. For instance:
SL FMV Maintenance
0 100% 0.100%
1 99% 0.100%
2 98% 0.100%
3 97% 0.100%
4 96% 0.100%
5 95% 0.100%
6 94% 0.100%
7 93% 0.100%
8 92% 0.100%
9 91% 0.100%
10 90% 0.100%
11 89% 0.200%
12 87% 0.200%
13 86% 0.200%
14 84% 0.200%
15 83% 0.200%
16 81% 0.250%
17 80% 0.250%
18 78% 0.250%
19 77% 0.250%
20 75% 0.250%
21 73% 0.300%
22 70% 0.300%
23 68% 0.300%
24 65% 0.300%
25 63% 0.350%
26 60% 0.350%
27 58% 0.350%
28 55% 0.350%
29 53% 0.350%
30 50% 0.350%
31 48% 0.400%
32 45% 0.400%
33 42% 0.400%
34 40% 0.400%
35 37% 0.500%
36 35% 0.500%
37 32% 0.500%
38 30% 0.500%
39 27% 0.500%
40 25% 0.600%
41 24% 0.600%
42 23% 0.625%
43 22% 0.625%
44 21% 0.650%
45 20% 0.650%
+1 -0.25% +0.025%
SL= Service life in years
FMV=Fair Market Value of ship (as percentage of initial cost)
Maintenance=Annual Maintenance (as percentage of initial cost)
The maintenance numbers have not been tested; the FMV numbers are what I use in my current campaign.
Basically, a ship will have a chronological age and a service age. Usually, they are the same, but a particularly hard period can increase the service age.
Last edited:
Sable covered most of my "significant" changes.
Their change to xEffect damage was, IMO, to numbers too low, but then, I wanted CT Damage dice as the base numbers...
Adding NCO's and skills for NCO promotions is a major change. One I disagree with. Not because I think modern NCO's are less skilled than officers, but because I modeled my take on NCO's after the soviet model, where NCO promotions were not about merit...
Gar took to heart the problems with power plants right off... and fixed one of two aspects (the ability to get into jump with "balanced letters" for JD & PP), and hasn't fixed the other aspect (Ability to run the MD...). As it sits, a MoTrav 2G vessel gets about 1.5G performance with "balanced letters" for PP and MD...
Their change to xEffect damage was, IMO, to numbers too low, but then, I wanted CT Damage dice as the base numbers...
Adding NCO's and skills for NCO promotions is a major change. One I disagree with. Not because I think modern NCO's are less skilled than officers, but because I modeled my take on NCO's after the soviet model, where NCO promotions were not about merit...
Gar took to heart the problems with power plants right off... and fixed one of two aspects (the ability to get into jump with "balanced letters" for JD & PP), and hasn't fixed the other aspect (Ability to run the MD...). As it sits, a MoTrav 2G vessel gets about 1.5G performance with "balanced letters" for PP and MD...
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
And as noted, these purportedly significant changes mostly resemble light editing.
Not convinced.
It's like watching RMS Titanic leave Southhampton...
Last edited:
The only thing I think would convince you would be Mongoose actually kao-taoing to you personally.
You've been negative (and nothing but) since it was announced.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
If dropping the deeply flawed T/E mechanic -- which you yourself have designed a significant "fix" for -- and the fussy and pointless initiative system is "kao-taoing" to me, then I say kao-tao away.
An accurate statement-- assuming that "the beginning" dates from when Mongoose posted the playtest rules--though of minimal relevance. From the start, I've detested the initiative mechanic and the fussy and deeply flawed T/E mechanic for reasons that I have covered ad nauseum. And I note that the mechanics in question are virtually unchanged.
So...it seems silly of you to complain that I continue to criticize it when it continues to suck. Soured milk doesn't improve with time; the same is true of game mechanics IMHO.
And given that you yourself created a pretty major revision to the T/E mechanic -- which I note that Mongoose declined to implement -- your criticisms are even more surreal.
Now, surely you aren't complaining merely because you don't like the fact that I criticize the game?
Last edited:
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
No he's complaining because you are beating a dead horse :devil:
No saying you are incorrect in your observations, but you've made your opinions clear (as have others) and at this point continuing to post about it is serving to no purpose (by all parties). Apparently Mongoose isn't going to change it.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Weren't effect rolls uncapped in v1.0 of the playtest rules?
Yes. And I complained about it when they went to capped in v2.0, and kept it capped in 3.0...
and it has changed back since 3.2...
It's less of an issue uncapped, but a real fix is to make success a roll low, and keep roll-high on timing and effect... or vice versa.
and it has changed back since 3.2...
It's less of an issue uncapped, but a real fix is to make success a roll low, and keep roll-high on timing and effect... or vice versa.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
In my defense, I don't think that the record supports your interpretation.
I started this thread to discuss the fact that starship ecomomics are broken in MGT -- something that now seems hardly in dispute. I had not commented on this subject at all before starting this thread.
As we worked through various economics issues, someone offered the defense that the same flaws existed in CT, I replied that (a) I expect a game produced in 2008 to be better than one produced in 1977 and (b) while I cut Marc Miller a lot of slack because of his accomplishments, I don't cut Mongoose (or anyone else) that kinda slack.
At that point, Aramis replied "Your "generosity" appeared exhausted before you even opened the files".
Since I did not express an opinion on MGT until after they posted v1.0 of the playtest rules, this statement is both misleading and condescending. I let it go, in the interest of general amity
But this charge does not at all seem to be a charge of "flogging a dead horse". Indeed it seems to be a clear accusation of irrational (and/or unreasonable) hatred of MGT.
Now, given the amount of statistical analysis I've porduced and the fact htat Aramis himself created various "fixes", this seems like a stereotypical "fanboy" response. (Not accusing him of such; merely noting that the behavior appears to me to be similar).
Aramis went on to claim that numerous changes have been made in response to playtest suggestions. I disagreed and asked for evidence. The evidence produced was, well, underwhelming to me. I noted this fact and that it was "like watching RMS Titanic leaving Southhampton".
Aramis' response was to essentially re-state his claim above and imply that I am unreasonably biased against the game.
To which I observed that if the game still contains the flaws that I initially criticized, it is ridiculous to complain that I still don't like the mechanic. Since I am loathe to conclude he's irrational, I asked an honest question -- are his complaints really an emotional reaction to the fact that I don't like a game he does like?
<shrug>
I'm not terribly enthusiastic about continuing this soap opera. But I do think that the record disagrees with your interpretation of his motives. No offense intended here; and no insults intended either.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
So...at the end of the day, the mechanic is the same as it was in version 1,0, yes?
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Let me clarify then. You are ALL beating a dead horse.
Frankly I don't care, beat away as long as you (inclusive you) don't make it into personal attacks.
That said, a few posts have walked perilously close to going over the edge. That's just a friendly warning to all.
Don't know for certain, but I suspect that no, not quite.
I suspect we'll see a 1-10 table, and that it will be Die+Stat+Skill+Difficulty for T/E.
V1 was 1-6 table, Die+Skill+Difficulty. (note absence of Stat for T/E effects: made for a nice distinction between the two...)
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Let me clarify then. You are ALL beating a dead horse.
Frankly I don't care, beat away as long as you (inclusive you) don't make it into personal attacks.
That said, a few posts have walked perilously close to going over the edge. That's just a friendly warning to all.
I tried to PM you about the other thread you closed earlier today (at your invitation)...your PM box must be full. I received the message that you "weren't accepting" messages.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
PMs to me only work for moderators. That's why I also mentioned emailing me. You can send me an email to grip (the @ sign) RPGRealms.com
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Got it, reply sent. All is good.
Far from me wanting to stir up controversy, but may I make the suggestion that the moniker of this forum should be changed from the 'Mongoose Traveller' forum, to the 'tbeard1999 and Supplement Four hate Mongoose Traveller' forum?
It would save a lot of confusion, and wasted time for people who might actually like and play the game.
Many thanks in advance.
It would save a lot of confusion, and wasted time for people who might actually like and play the game.
Many thanks in advance.
Able Baker
SOC-10
Echo,
I´d love to see an actual play post that conveys the fun of Mongoose Traveller.
Until then, my own play experience and the reasoning of it´s other critics stand, no matter the bias.
I´d love to see an actual play post that conveys the fun of Mongoose Traveller.
Until then, my own play experience and the reasoning of it´s other critics stand, no matter the bias.
Similar threads
