• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

The Universal Starport facility Profile

[saluting the Imperial Officer] Sir, Yes Sir! [crisp right turn, and march off]

Paul Nemeth
AA

-------------------------------------------------
looks down at shoulder epaulets..durn..the cleaners musta got me the wrong suit back!

--Thanks Paul.<grins>
 
Guys, I was playing around with ideas like this myself a wile back, and as someone who doesn't adventure much within the 3I I came up with both ownership of the port, and who could use it.

For instance, ownership:
I = Imperial
G = Non-Imperial Government
M = Megacorporate
C = Commercial Interests
P = Privately Owned

... and acceptable traffic:
A = All Traffic
M = Military Only
C = Civilian Only
P = Private Traffic Only

This would allow you to have a type IM port for a naval base, or a type IA port for a standard starport, whilst also having type GA for local govet. owned facilities, or CC for commercial civilian facilities, run by a local corporation, or even MP for a megacorporate bulk loading facility only open for their own vessels.

Whattya think?
 
Originally posted by Falkayn:
Guys, I was playing around with ideas like this myself a wile back, and as someone who doesn't adventure much within the 3I I came up with both ownership of the port, and who could use it.

For instance, ownership:
I = Imperial
G = Non-Imperial Government
M = Megacorporate
C = Commercial Interests
P = Privately Owned

... and acceptable traffic:
A = All Traffic
M = Military Only
C = Civilian Only
P = Private Traffic Only

This would allow you to have a type IM port for a naval base, or a type IA port for a standard starport, whilst also having type GA for local govet. owned facilities, or CC for commercial civilian facilities, run by a local corporation, or even MP for a megacorporate bulk loading facility only open for their own vessels.

Whattya think?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you've got a great idea, ANgus, thats what! I shall file this with the two letter code idea of Maddog's on the USFP.. yeah, the two letter code fer ownership/ traffic. Nice concept... :D !
 
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Falkayn:
Guys, I was playing around with ideas like this myself a wile back, and as someone who doesn't adventure much within the 3I I came up with both ownership of the port, and who could use it.

For instance, ownership:
I = Imperial
G = Non-Imperial Government
M = Megacorporate
C = Commercial Interests
P = Privately Owned

... and acceptable traffic:
A = All Traffic
M = Military Only
C = Civilian Only
P = Private Traffic Only

This would allow you to have a type IM port for a naval base, or a type IA port for a standard starport, whilst also having type GA for local govet. owned facilities, or CC for commercial civilian facilities, run by a local corporation, or even MP for a megacorporate bulk loading facility only open for their own vessels.

Whattya think?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you've got a great idea, ANgus, thats what! I shall file this with the two letter code idea of Myth's on the USFP.. yeah, the two letter code fer ownership/ traffic. Nice concept... :D !
</font>[/QUOTE]Because some of the letters repeat, and that may lead to confusion, I suggest alphanumeric, as follows:

For instance, ownership:
I = Imperial
G = Non-Imperial Government
M = Megacorporate
C = Commercial Interests
P = Privately Owned

... and acceptable traffic:
0 = All Traffic
1 = Military Only
2 = Civilian Only
9 = Private Traffic Only

Paul Nemeth
AA
 
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Maddog, AA, SMilingDM..
All great ideas on the importer/ export world stuff! remember also the planet main port could have been built for bigger amounts of traffic ONCE UPON A TIME..and recession/ trade rte changed..and space goes begging..its not the numbers.. its the descriptives. the reverse is equally true- an economic BOOM could be affecting the port-and they're scrambling to get more warehousing built!

We work up a table for that crunchiness, and things will gel. Paul, are you up to handling that?
(catching up on threads that I've lost track of
) Liam and Shane, do you see this as a 'Fleshing Out' type of table, or where would it fit?

Draft Starport Activity Level
2d6 or 1d12 (GM option)

1 - Ghost Port. Local environment and economics have changed to the point where this port is now abandoned.
2 - Ghost Port. As above, but the port has been mothballed and has minimal automated and manual monitoring and maintainence resources in place.
3 - 'We've seen better days.' This port is operating at less than 1d8 x5% of it's designed normal capacity. Most staff have been laid off indefinitely, and the rest are in a work slow approach in order to avoid the same fate. Some delays in servicing are possible (GM option).
4-5 - 'Things will get better soon!' This port is currently in the grips of an economic downturn or local difficulties affecting its primary industries. The port is operating at 40+(1d8 x5)% of its designed normal capacity. Some staff have been temporarily laid off, and no overtime is available. Aside from employee grumbling, the players will not notice any adverse effect.
6-8 - 'Business as usual.' This planet's economy is operating well, and as a result, this port is operating at 80+(1d8 x5)% of its normal capacity. Throughput is not affected.
9-10 - 'Life is good!' The planet's economy is experiencing a moderate economic boom. The port is operating at above normal levels (120+(1d6 x5)% of normal capacity). The starport staff are working overtime and renting extra equipment to meet requirements.
11 - 'Sorry, can't stop to talk.' The planet's economy is experiencing a strong and sustained economic boom. The port is operating at well above normal levels (150+(1d6 x5)% of normal capacity), and is reaching the designed maximum limits of the facility. The starport staff are working overtime, many of the employees are inexperienced and every square centimeter of space is jammed with something. The port is also experiencing an increase in delays for berthing and clearance of cargo (GM discretion).
12 - 'Please divert to an alternate location.' The port is operating in excess of its maximum safe limits (180+(1d6 x5)% of normal capacity). Accidents rates are high, and the number of incidents is increasing as port staff are stretched to their limits. 1d10 x10% chance that the player's ship will be diverted to an alternate port, temporary facility, or left in orbit.

Paul Nemeth
AA
 
Hey Paul, if I may throw a few more of my Cr.02 in, I like the color part a lot, especially the ghost port concept and the mad rush/haste causes accidents extreme. However I'm not thrilled with your percentages, just my own sensibility, there may be nothing wrong with them at all.

This is also related to part of my old notes. Sorry Liam, went to dust them off and well most seem to have turned to dust ;) still there's my memory, iirc
file_21.gif


Anyway, what I had was a simple roll on the old CT actual value table ('cause it was there) for the ports current activity vs capacity. For 90% or less there's no wait for most ships, 100% or more and you're looking at a wait in a far parking orbit till a slot opens up. I used 10% clearing per day, your turn in line to land comes up when the activity level drops to 90%. Note this merely represents your place in line, not neccesarily that the port is actually clearing out.

Of course this could be over-ridden in the case of an emergency, political pull if you're a ranked noble, or in some cases bribery.

Naturally a military port would also be expected to allow emergency traffic and Nobles, detached duty Scouts and the occasional retired Navy Admiral.

If there was more than one appropriate port in system you could divert, presuming they too weren't overloaded (same roll with a DM +1 per 20% overload of the previous port). Of course any passengers and/or cargo offloading will have to be routed to the main port, at your expense naturally.

I think for T20 (and to still be compatible with CT) I'd go with a 3d6 x10% roll for current activity, for 30% to 180%, with DM's of up to +2 or -2, probably based on my old concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sytem ranking. What the heck, might as well explain that here now too, its related.

Very simply I had each system ranked based on its makeup.

Primary - Sector Capitals, Naval Depots, Scout Way Stations and X-Boat serviced systems rate primary status. DM +2 for current activity vs capacity.

Secondary - Subsector Capitals, Naval Bases and Scout Bases rate secondary status if not already primary as above. No DM for current activity vs capacity.

Tertiary - Any system that lacks all the above is rated teriary. DM -2 for current activity vs capacity.

Hmm, looks like I also had the frequency of ship encouters also related to the above.

Primary systems - Encouters are rolled daily. Number of rolls based on the Starport type (see below).

Secondary systems - Encouters are rolled weekly. Number of rolls based on the Starport type (see below).

Tertiary systems - Encouters are rolled monthly. Number of rolls based on the Starport type (see below).

Starport____#of rolls

class A______5 rolls
class B______4 rolls
class C______3 rolls
class D______2 rolls
class E______1 rolls
class X______0 rolls

Of course this was actual encounters, not a chance of an encouter (as in T20) or the actual traffic (up to the GM) so the numbers will need some work.

Anyway there's a little more inspiration for ya.
 
Originally posted by Antares Administration:
(catching up on threads that I've lost track of
) Liam and Shane, do you see this as a 'Fleshing Out' type of table, or where would it fit?

Draft Starport Activity Level
2d6 or 1d12 (GM option)

<big SNIP>

Paul Nemeth
AA
_________________________________________________
Size of port is a definite Pop & economic driven figure (after all the UWP is handed to Gm from get go, unless he-she is cranking one from scratch).
I would put the economic activity of the port in the USFP..though we can quibble what die is used later by number of examples..thats my take Paul!
Its a part of why a trader is a trader- he checks the news to see whats hot where..and if the port is a boom town, he/she/it will beeline there.mALl depends why the pC's are headed to it..but yeah, I see it in the USFP..if its a dry eyesore and nothing is moving there, they'd not likely head there for sales.. or might, if they were on the run looking for a place to cool off..
see what I mean?

good example! Likes that!!
 
Originally posted by Antares Administration:
Sorry to cut and paste like that, FT, but I want to get my head around this. I wanted to differentiate between 'normal capacity' - the rate at which the port could operate forever without any excess capacity, and 'design capacity' or 'peak capacity' - rate rate of operation that the port could surge to for a limited period of time. That's why the range from 0%-200% of 'normal'.
Ah, now I see it, had I been more than half awake I might have figured it out.

Originally posted by Antares Administration:
I follow the DM mod that you've proposed, but here's another option:

Busy, type a ports will have the flattest demand curves (i.e. busy all the time, steady) and the least probability of extremes, and smaller, lower rated ports will have the most variable activity (i.e. feast or famine) and the most likelihood of extremes.

Given that, how about:

Type A - 6d4
Type B - 3d6
Type C - 3d8
Type D - 2d10
Type E - 1d20
Type X - n/a

Paul Nemeth
AA
That makes a lot of sense but you lost me on the table above, what is it rolling? (I'm sure its obvious but man am I braindead, I should hit the rack).
 
Originally posted by far-trader:
That makes a lot of sense but you lost me on the table above, what is it rolling? (I'm sure its obvious but man am I braindead, I should hit the rack).
file_21.gif
file_21.gif
file_21.gif


While you were doing your post, I came to the same conclusion (that I was brain-dead and that I should hit the rack). When I didn't like the 2nd edit that I tried to do, I deleted the post. SORRY.

Short and sweet, I was rolling on the Activity Table. The one with Ghost Town, etc.

In the unsuccessful 2nd edit, I adjusted the table to range from 1-20, weighted toward the center, i.e. normal operations on 8-13.

The last die table I came up with was:
(Min 1, Max 20)
Type A port - roll 6d4-4 (2-20)
B - 4d6-3 [(1-21) becomes 1-20]
C - 3d8-3 [(0-21) becomes 1-20]
D - 2d10 [(2-20) becomes 2-20]
E - 1d20 [(1-20) becomes 1-20]

The Type E has a flat probability of any of the types on the Activity table, i.e. 1d20 (although I did weight the possibilities toward normal).

The Type A has a much lower standard deviation, i.e. it is much more likely to be normal all of the time. Therefore, 6d4-4.

Paul Nemeth
AA
 
Originally posted by Antares Administration:
file_21.gif
file_21.gif
file_21.gif


While you were doing your post, I came to the same conclusion (that I was brain-dead and that I should hit the rack). When I didn't like the 2nd edit that I tried to do, I deleted the post. SORRY.

Paul Nemeth
AA
file_21.gif


No problem, I like that a lot, and now my download is done and I know what you meant so I can sleep in peace, nite, er, well an early good-morning in fact but time for me to rest the peepers for a couple hours anyway.
 
Liam and Shane, given that last exchange between FT and I in the wee hours of the morning, I'd like to recommend that the 'Powers that Be' award us both with Purple Hearts. The commodation should read something like:

"In the face of exhaustion and the intense scrutiny of hundreds of CotI users, FT and AA risked mental damage in their efforts to ensure that all of the CotI would be able to benefit from a more comprehensive UPFS. Their sacrifice of hours of blissful sleep was not in vain."

What more can we say....

Paul Nemeth
AA
 
Originally posted by Antares Administration:
Liam and Shane, given that last exchange between FT and I in the wee hours of the morning, I'd like to recommend that the 'Powers that Be' award us both with Purple Hearts. The commodation should read something like:

"In the face of exhaustion and the intense scrutiny of hundreds of CotI users, FT and AA risked mental damage in their efforts to ensure that all of the CotI would be able to benefit from a more comprehensive UPFS. Their sacrifice of hours of blissful sleep was not in vain."

What more can we say....

Paul Nemeth
AA
file_21.gif
Too funny Paul, and thanks for the thought and laugh...

in character mode on...

...but I humbly decline, I'm just a civilian, a humble trader and CotI doing my part to make my home port of call a better place for all. I put away the uniform years ago. far-trader out.
 
The UWP covers information about the world, so the USFP should be limited strictly to the port itself, I'd think. What game usable information would be in it?

1 main port or secondary
2 ownership/management
3 traffic
4 law level (T20 main campaign area contains non-Imperial planets where LL might differ from both Imperium and planetary LL.
5 berthing costs/fees
6 something about bribability of officials, but couched in euphemism; perhaps availability of alternative bureaucratic solutions. This is VERY important to some travellers.
 
Alternative bureaucratic solution, hey myth, thats sure says a lot!!..I am gonna use that one!!! I know ist out of topic, but...

If i shoot the SOB is that considered an
Alternative Bureaucratic Solution???


hehehehehehe ;)
file_21.gif
file_22.gif
 
Originally posted by Mythmere:
The UWP covers information about the world, so the USFP should be limited strictly to the port itself, I'd think. What game usable information would be in it?

3 traffic

Mythmere (and Shane and Liam), some of the prep we're doing for ITB indicated that we're going to have to integrate what we're doing with this factor. I'd appreciate if you could keep us in the loop on what you're considering.

So far, we're looking at asking that World Trade Balance and a new factor called Planetary Economy (we may be able to use Pop instead) be included in the Sector Data Tables (starting with Gateway). That would give players the World's baseline economic data. Starport commercial traffic ought to tie in with that.

A point for discussion - WTB is planetary natural resources - Population, and represents the planets net exports (imports). Therefore:

1. The primary starport of the planet should have a Traffic value >= the Absolute Value (WTB). Stated otherwise, Min Traffic = Absolute Value (WTB). For example, Starfall has a WTB of +7 (it's a strong net exporter). Therefore, Min Traffic should equal 7.

2. Traffic = Imports + Exports + Transient , where all terms are represented as positive numbers. Right now, for the sake of simplicity, we're looking at representing transient (background) trade with a single value for each subsector. Let's call it TT. WTB and TT both use the Pop convention where the factor represents a power of 10. The maximum size of Traffic for any port should the greater of 2xWTB or TT. But with powers of 10, 2xWTB will never be more than one factor higher, and the formula becomes WTB+1. Therefore, Traffic = the greater of WTB +1 or TT. Now, if the background TT for Williamsburg/Glimmerdrift Reaches is +3, and Starfall's WTB is +7, you should ignore the TT, and the maximum Traffic rating for Starfall should be 8.

This way, we've derived a range that a starport's traffic value must fit. Starfall traffic must be between 7 and 8.

Rather than over specify the solution at this point, we could just say:

Traffic must be > WTB, and < the greater of WTB +1 or TT, and let the GM decide the actual value of Traffic.

Thoughts?

Paul Nemeth
AA
 
Rather than over specify the solution at this point, we could just say:

Traffic must be > WTB, and < the greater of WTB +1 or TT, and let the GM decide the actual value of Traffic.

Thoughts?

Paul Nemeth
AA
Let's start by identifying what the goal is. Why does the character in an RPG need to know what the traffic at a starport looks like? It may be important because it will impact his ability to make money on a cargo. It may only be important that he not run into any of it as he glides gracefully toward the starport.
I included traffic ONLY because it has been a matter of debate - given my druthers I don't see how it is relevant.
At a maximum, yes, traffic could be stylized at a number equal to the absolute value of its balance of trade. But to what end? Is it going to link up to something in your book, Paul? Because if it doesn't have a game function, I'd say leave it out of the USFP, now that I think of it.
 
Originally posted by Mythmere:
Let's start by identifying what the goal is. Why does the character in an RPG need to know what the traffic at a starport looks like? It may be important because it will impact his ability to make money on a cargo. It may only be important that he not run into any of it as he glides gracefully toward the starport.
I included traffic ONLY because it has been a matter of debate - given my druthers I don't see how it is relevant.
At a maximum, yes, traffic could be stylized at a number equal to the absolute value of its balance of trade. But to what end? Is it going to link up to something in your book, Paul? Because if it doesn't have a game function, I'd say leave it out of the USFP, now that I think of it.
It does have a game function, here's why, and then you guys can decide whether or not it fits in the USFP.

[Bear in mind that this is a concept, and has not yet been test driven.]

A merchant approaching a planet is concerned with two things:

a. Will he sell his cargo and for how much, and
b. Will there be cargo waiting and for how much?

The merchant will land at a starport, but the starport sees lots of merchants. There may also be competing starports on planet, each with different volumes. Traffic is one of several variables that will be important for the availability of a buyer for the cargo he has, and a seller for the cargo he wants.

The availability of that buyer and seller will be subject to the volume of goods imported and exported (WTB), the number of other ships trying to buy and sell the same goods (Traffic), and the relative power of the planet's economy (proposed PE number, but possibly Population).

Now, traffic is dynamic, it moves with demand for its services (in economic terms, it's demonstrates short-term elasticity of supply). In simpler terms, the availability and cost of a sale or purchase will depend, to some extent, on the number of ships servicing the planet in relation to its import/export needs. A planet that is a net importer will attract just enough traffic to satisfy its positive WTB, so the merchant shouldn't have a problem selling the goods he has onboard.

Now he needs a cargo. :eek: The positive WTB means that there aren't enough outgoing loads to satisfy all of the traffic offloading at the starport and also looking for outbound loads. In this case, PE (or Pop), traffic and WTB will be used as modifiers to the merchants DC to secure a cargo, and can be offset somewhat by the merchant's trading or brokerage skills.

With a large enough WTB, positive or negative, there will be a lot of ships travelling to or from a system empty. Suddenly, it becomes harder for a merchant to make money, because the loads will not always be there.

Paul Nemeth
AA
 
Originally posted by Antares Administration:
I'd put your name up too, Liam, but you're an Officer. It's expected from you. ;) :rolleyes: :D

Paul Nemeth
AA
-------------------------------------------------
And so, back to the grindstone once again..
file_21.gif
;) :cool:
 
Back
Top