T5 Sensors

[Supplement Four]

Was looking over the Sensors chapter, and I've begun a love/hate relationship with it.

The chapter tells you the process for using sensors (love), but the sensor task is needlessly convoluted with all the parts necessary for the T5 task system (hate).

Difficulty is based on range to the target, and the target number begins with the TL of the sensor used. Modifiers are either INT or EDU plus Sensor skill level; a modifier made up of Object Size minus Range; and any other mods that may apply.

In addition, it is suggested that the task be performed as an Uncertain Task, where the Ref and the player both roll some dice.

What I hate about this is how complicated and slow the process must be to operate sensors! It's really all because of the task system. The T5 task system continues to be a poor choice for the game, and this a good example expressing that opinion.





Look at how crazy this is:

First, you've got a big handful of dice because we're talking about Space ranges. And, I am talking about a HUGE handful of dice. Orbit to ground sensing is done with 8D. Far Oribt to world is 9D.

Here's another convoluted complication: The scale changes depending on what you are trying to detect. For example, walking around on a planet's surface, using a Mass Detector at Very Distant range (50 km), is a 7D task. But, also, if a ship uses a Grav Sensor out to Attack Range of 2 light seconds, that's also a 7D task.

You've got to refer to the Sensor Charts, cross reference the sensor and the range, to find the difficulty. The charts max out at 12D, corresponding to Deep Space, or 30 light minutes.

(More confusion. Isn't distance measured in km? The chart shows light seconds and light minutes--which means the Ref will need to convert when figuring travel time.)



Next, if you are rolling a huge handful of dice like this, then your target number has got to be high, too, right? Well, your target number is created by the TL of the sensor being used plus the sensor operator's INT or EDU plus his Sensor skill. If you've got a TL 13 sensor and EDU-7, with Skill-4, your target number is 24.

You modify the target number by taking the Size of the object you are trying to detect and subtracting Range from it. The result is a modifier on the sensing task.

And, of course, you would add any other non-standard mods.





Now, I ask you: Would you rather use all of that in a game? Or, would you just like to roll 2D, plus skill and other mods, for a hidden target that only the Ref knows? You throw. He tells you what your sensors report, based on the quality of your throw. Which is easier? Which is more fun?

I used a roll low mechanic for my CT Sensor Rules (see my sig), and even with that, the roll is very simple: Roll Ship's Computer # or less on 1D, 2D, or 3D. The amount of dice you use, 1D-3D, is based on range. The operator's skill is used as a modifier. Pretty simple.

 

[Supplement Four]

So, I really dislike the T5 task system, and I think the above shows how its use in the game just mucks up the works and makes the game much more fussy and slow than it needs to be.

But, let's talk about the things I like in the T5 Sensors chapter. There's much there to like.

First off, there's a nice direction to the Ref on how to use Sensors in a game. And, it's quite easy. The Ref gives the players an "alert", basically telling them that there may be something out there to detect. From there, the players use the Sensors, via the Sensor tasks, to try and find out what the alert is--they try to dectect it.

Simple enough (if you bypass the task system).



Next, the chapter is full of information about Sensors. And, this is definitely one of the better descriptions of Sensors that I've seen in a Traveller product. You and mix and match sensors, creating your own special sensor packages for your ships. And, instead of players just relying on generic "ships sensors", they will know the right tool for the job.

The Ref will know if the type of information that the players are trying to detect is even available on their ship. Players can't detect life signs on a hulk in space if their ship is not equipped with a Life Detector.

And, there's a pretty neat illustration of what some sensors look like.

All good stuff.

 

[Licheking]

You have missed the point of course. Ship based sensors are space ranged based, that means if your sensing within he atmosphere of a world at world ranges the ranges are reduced by 5 (P.41). So Orbit to Ground is SR-4 or 4D. Also if you look at the ranges table on P.41 you will find the ranges in KM as well as speed of light. Also the default range for most sensors is 7, so the biggest dice pool a player will need to roll is 7 maybe 8 if they don't have the skill high enough (TiH), obviously this changes if you have souped up your sensors to DS range (12) but most characters won't be able to detect anything other than worlds out at that range anyway.

As for the roll itself well its easy, you the GM rolls 1 dice then the player controlling the sensor starts rolling dice starting with SR-2 (i do this because i have already rolled 1D), they then keep adding 1D for each band outwards and as long as its under the C+S+K+sensor TL they will detect things at the rolled range. Whats so hard about that, my players love it.

 

[Supplement Four]

So Orbit to Ground is SR-4 or 4D. Also if you look at the ranges table on P.41 you will find the ranges in KM as well as speed of light.

First off, wouldn't that be a nice thing to reference in the Sensor Chapter, that is 338 pages later in the book (starting on p. 379)?





Either way, Orbit to Ground sensing is a piece of cake.

Sensor Operator has Skill-4, EDU-7. The Mass Sensor is TL 8. Range is 8 (Orbit). Size of a ship is 7. That means a mod of -1 is applied.

4D for 18 or less?

That's a 90% chance to detect a ship on the surface of a world.

You don't think that's a little, um, high?

Also the default range for most sensors is 7, so the biggest dice pool a player will need to roll is 7 maybe 8 if they don't have the skill high enough (TiH), ...

According to the chart in the Sensor Chapter, page Attack Range is 7D and 8D. Long Range is 9D, 10D, and 11D.

I would think those ranges would be used in the game quite often.

As for the roll itself well its easy, you the GM rolls 1 dice then the player controlling the sensor starts rolling dice starting with SR-2 (i do this because i have already rolled 1D), they then keep adding 1D for each band outwards and as long as its under the C+S+K+sensor TL they will detect things at the rolled range. Whats so hard about that, my players love it.

It's needlessly complicated and, I would think, agent to slowing the game down.

The Ref has to mess with this Uncertainty stuff, and he has to calculate the mod for Size minus Range.

It would be much, much easier if the player just threw 2D plus mods, where the Ref keeps the target secret.

 

[DonM]

[m;]*** ATTENTION: DON POSTING AS MODERATOR ***[/m;]

Look -- we all know you dislike the T5 task system, and I don't mind that... I'm really trying to allow for criticism of the system in a positive way. But I have e-mails (not PMs -- e-mails) that folks are tired of you saying mentioning the fact in EVERY post you put in the T5 discussion area.

This is akin to anyone who goes into the MegaTraveller area and complains repeatedly about the size of the errata, or Rodge's position on the DGP IPs, or posting about UGM there (MT has a task system, and most of that system's fans LIKE it, so repeated posts about how UGM is better get VERY annoying).

This is akin to posting in the TNE forum that FF&S was a bad idea, or repeatedly complaining about blowing up Charted Space, etc. The fans of TNE generally like the reboot universe, and no matter how passionate you might argue, you're really just annoying them in their discussion forum.

The T5 task system is not changing, and we know you don't like it. But if you are going to post in the T5 discussion area, don't complain about it in every post, or at some point, I'll actually use my moderator powers.

For only the second time ever. Please don't make that happen.

 

[rancke]

*** ATTENTION: DON POSTING AS MODERATOR ***

Look -- we all know you dislike the T5 task system, and I don't mind that... I'm really trying to allow for criticism of the system in a positive way. But I have e-mails (not PMs -- e-mails) that folks are tired of you saying mentioning the fact in EVERY post you put in the T5 discussion area.

"Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed!


Hans

 

[Spinward Scout]

CARTHAGO DELENDA EST!


Hans

Good and seemingly appropriate Latin reference. Unfortunately, only English is allowed on this board. Any other language may be viewed as SPAM.

 

[rancke]

Good and seemingly appropriate Latin reference. Unfortunately, only English is allowed on this board. Any other language may be viewed as SPAM.

Fixed. Never let it be said that I would wantonly violate the board rules. Perish the thought!


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Look -- we all know you dislike the T5 task system, and I don't mind that... I'm really trying to allow for criticism of the system in a positive way. But I have e-mails (not PMs -- e-mails) that folks are tired of you saying mentioning the fact in EVERY post you put in the T5 discussion area.

All they see is the critisim of how poorly the task system works in post 1 (my opinion, of course). But, no one mentions the positive remarks I make about the rest of the T5 Sensor chapter in post 2?

The task system is, in my opinion, unnecessarily fiddly, and I explained above, but there are some neat things about the T5 sensors (as I went on to describe in post 2).

Instead of posts defending the T5 system, the critisim is countered with e-mails to "shut him up"?

The T5 task system is not changing, and we know you don't like it. But if you are going to post in the T5 discussion area, don't complain about it in every post, or at some point, I'll actually use my moderator powers.

Recently, I started THIS THREAD , where I defend the statistics of the T5 system (only criticizing the broken SS rule) more than once as a viable system.

So, I think the impression of me "mentioning the fact (that I don't like the T5 task system) in EVERY post you put in the T5 discussion area" is a bit exaggerated.

When I see things in T5 that I really like, I mention those, too.

I've suggested several "fixes" to some T5 problems (see sig below).

Recently, I speculated about Action Points and T5.

In post #1 of THIS THREAD, you will see me describe some aspects of T5 as brilliant.

So...really, is it tons of CotI forum members begging you to keep me from posting some of the problems with T5? Or, is it one or two T5 players who just don't want to look at some of the issue that I bring up?



Not arguing, just replying to and discussing what you've mentioned in your post.

BTW, I welcome any non-heated, non-personal debate on any of the ideas I've put forth above.

In the interests of being a team player, though, I'll back off from posting about T5.

 

[rancke]

All they see is the critisim of how poorly the task system works in post 1 (my opinion, of course). But, no one mentions the positive remarks I make about the rest of the T5 Sensor chapter in post 2?

Perhaps no one is tired of your positive remarks about T5?


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Perhaps no one is tired of your positive remarks about T5?

LOL. Exactly.

All I hear is crickets for rebuttal of most of the problems I see and bring up about T5.

 

[Licheking]

That's a 90% chance to detect a ship on the surface of a world. You don't think that's a little, um, high?

No not at all, we can use googleearth now and zoom in on houses, streets and cars, so to have a sensor on a ship be able to pick another ship up on the ground doesn't seem that high.

According to the chart in the Sensor Chapter, page Attack Range is 7D and 8D. Long Range is 9D, 10D, and 11D. I would think those ranges would be used in the game quite often.

I have been running T5 for several months now and the furthest range i have needed was SR-7. Most of the ship to ship fights have actually been at SR-2 since laser the most common ship weapon only have a SR of 2 (Very Distant R-7). Yes there have been some long range shots with missiles but they work slightly differently anyway from normal ship to ship combat.

It's needlessly complicated and, I would think, agent to slowing the game down. The Ref has to mess with this Uncertainty stuff, and he has to calculate the mod for Size minus Range.

It is not needlessly complicated, the point is to have some uncertainty in there for the players. If you don't like that, just drop the dice you roll and then ask them to roll at whichever range they think they can manage, then if they want to go further out from there add the appropriate dice. This has the advantage of speeding things up a little and giving the players a little more control over their sensor rolls. The uncertainty is still there but now it has to do with whether they have picked a range close to the target or not.

And yes i do recognize that you have made some positive points about T5 and the Task System in your probability thread, and i do agree that some sections could have been organized better and that there is a problem with SS/SF, but all the rules are there, and i think have the charts near the start was a good idea since they are fundamental to all the systems in the book.

By the way, i have dealt with SS/SF by saying they only kick in when you either succeed at the overall task or fail otherwise they don't count. This has worked well in my games and was agreed too by all the players.

 

[PhilB]

No not at all, we can use googleearth now and zoom in on houses, streets and cars, so to have a sensor on a ship be able to pick another ship up on the ground doesn't seem that high.

I'd agree with that point with one caveat. I'd expect that the ship on the ground would need to be in line of sight unless the sensor task takes long enough for the ship to orbit the planet.

I can't see any mention of time taken in the sensor task -- am I overlooking it?

 

[atpollard]

All I hear is crickets for rebuttal of most of the problems I see and bring up about T5.

The T5 core mechanics are what they are. I might wish that they had been based on 2D6, but they are not. I accept that and focus on areas of T5 where I can offer some constructive input (note that constructive input can be either positive or negative).

Pointing out a potential problem is probably constructive input.
Offering a suggested change is probably positive input.
Suggesting that T5 should scrap its core mechanics and go with a 2D6 core mechanic ... is probably not so constructive.

Let's face it, people who really like rolling 2D6 already have Mongoose Traveller. So why not focus your energy on porting what you like from T5 to MgT ... it would probably be welcomed on the Mongoose Traveller section of COTI.

[EDIT] Giving credit where it is due, you are clearly reading the T5 book and trying to understand how it works (which is commendable), you just come across a little like you are attempting to sweep back the tide with a broom (which probably annoys some people).

 

[pendragonman]

All they see is the critisim of how poorly the task system works in post 1 (my opinion, of course). But, no one mentions the positive remarks I make about the rest of the T5 Sensor chapter in post 2?

Perhaps it is because throughout your personal breakdown of T5 even your "positive" comments are somewhat backhanded. I often find that your T5 commentary are like someone who doesn't like the hotel room he is booked into, but in an effort to not be thoroughly negative they say "at least the carpet isn't puke green."

The fact that the carpet isn't puke green is a positive, but the way it is said makes it seem negative.

At least my perception of your breakdown of T5 is that you thoroughly don't like it. There are small fractions of it you are willing to work with, but you would rather all of the T5 rules look like your personal "fixes" and if someone doesn't like your "fixes" then they are not reading what is written properly.

Just one person's opinion though.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'd agree with that point with one caveat. I'd expect that the ship on the ground would need to be in line of sight unless the sensor task takes long enough for the ship to orbit the planet.

I balked at the chance of success because that's what I would expect if the sensing ship knew exactly where to look.

Googleearth has the advantage of time and several perspectives. It's not akin to just a single sensor scan for a single ship.



Let me put this in a better frame. Take a look at THIS PIC. It's a view of Earth from orbit.

Still think there's a 90% chance to find a 112 foot Free Trader in all that with a single sensor scan of a Mass Detector?

"Is that the ship? Nope, that's a warehouse. How about that? Nope, it's a boat. That? Nope, a detatched garage. There? No, that's a bus..."

 

[Supplement Four]

The T5 core mechanics are what they are. I might wish that they had been based on 2D6, but they are not. I accept that and focus on areas of T5 where I can offer some constructive input (note that constructive input can be either positive or negative).

Pointing out a potential problem is probably constructive input.
Offering a suggested change is probably positive input.
Suggesting that T5 should scrap its core mechanics and go with a 2D6 core mechanic ... is probably not so constructive.

The point of this thread is to review the Sensors Chapter of T5--something I haven't looked at or posted about yet.

I did that.

In sum, the sensor information is neat. I like the description of sensors and the pics of the sensor collectors.

OTOH, the task to make a sensor scan is overly fiddely and slow.

A few people seem to be focussed just on the negative part of the review.

Perhaps it is because throughout your personal breakdown of T5 even your "positive" comments are somewhat backhanded. I often find that your T5 commentary are like someone who doesn't like the hotel room he is booked into, but in an effort to not be thoroughly negative they say "at least the carpet isn't puke green."

The fact that the carpet isn't puke green is a positive, but the way it is said makes it seem negative.

Ditto my comments above.

I probably would not have brought up the task system again in the review except that it is such a good example of how the T5 task system fails.

Statistically, the system is fair.

Practically, the system is what I think (what many Traveller fans think) is a poor choice for the game.

I was illuminating an example of how the T5 system, in play, is overly fiddely and complicated.

That task system is pervasive in the game. It's hard not to talk about it as it is core to so many aspects of the game.

Had I left out the part about the fidely task system with the Sensors, and just spoke about how much I liked the sensor details in the Sensor chapter, would that have been a fair review?

At least my perception of your breakdown of T5 is that you thoroughly don't like it. There are small fractions of it you are willing to work with, but you would rather all of the T5 rules look like your personal "fixes" and if someone doesn't like your "fixes" then they are not reading what is written properly.

Why do I have the feeling that if I had not proffered any fixes to the problems I've cited with the game, that I would be criticized for always citing problems but never offering solutions.

I could care less if anybody uses the fixes. They are there for those who want to use them. And, they can be a spring board to other ideas that could solve the problem as well. No where do I say that what I have offered is the only way to fix any particular problem. In fact, I'd love to see some other ideas.

 

[daltoncalford]

No not at all, we can use googleearth now and zoom in on houses, streets and cars, so to have a sensor on a ship be able to pick another ship up on the ground doesn't seem that high.

The data for google earth is years out of date, required years to compile and although it can be queried quickly, does not really aid you when you do not know the name or location of something. Try to find a specific building out of a group of buildings from a strange city with unfamiliar architecture.

A single high-tech, Energy emitting space ship on a empty planet could be easy to spot, otherwise, not so easy.

It takes time to take high resolution images. Data bus pathways and processing power not withstanding, just the cpu task of image overlays and image stitching while avoiding distortions and image artefacts is a daunting task. After that, the required intelligent systems to determine what you are looking at and isolate it from all the other possible features is a very difficult task.
Humans are built for pattern recognition - our brains are specialised for that task, but, our brains are also very easily fooled. The more data you get, it becomes even more likely that you will miss something due to false positives.

The old saying of missing the forest due to the trees really applies here.

I would say that you need to take into consideration atmospheric effects (different chemical compositions will absorb different light frequencies) prevailing technology (determining one specific ship out of thousands), and a whole slew of different modifiers from the planets magnetic field to the time spent on the task.

 

[atpollard]

The data for google earth is years out of date, required years to compile and although it can be queried quickly, does not really aid you when you do not know the name or location of something. Try to find a specific building out of a group of buildings from a strange city with unfamiliar architecture.

Just to play 'Devils Advocate' here:
Either the ship that I am scanning for is at the starport or it is not.

If it is at the starport, then I am looking to identify a 727 in an airport full of 707s, 717s, 727s, 737s, 747s, 757s, 767s, 777s, 787s, L1011s and Airbuses. The typical starport may have less than a half-dozen ships on the tarmac at any time. Locating a specific ship in a small area with only a few possible targets to examine is not an insurmountable task.

If it is not in the starport, then I may be scanning for a hot object among a generally cold background ... like searching for a 727 somewhere among the Kansas wheatfields. The area to be scanned is large, but the contrast between the target and the background may be high.

If the ship is hiding in an industrial district to make detection more difficult, the Referee is probably free to increase the difficulty of the task.

So the 90% success may be reasonable for the typical case ("Which pad at the starport has the Fat Trader that we are supposed to deliver this cargo to?" or "Where on the ice world is the missing scout ship?").

Like I said, just offering some thoughts.
I got no dog in this fight.

 

[Supplement Four]

A single high-tech, Energy emitting space ship on a empty planet could be easy to spot, otherwise, not so easy.

If it is not in the starport, then I may be scanning for a hot object among a generally cold background ... like searching for a 727 somewhere among the Kansas wheatfields.

Don't forget that I used a Mass Detector in that example. I wasn't scanning for power sigs. That would take a different T5 sensor.