What does this paragraph mean to you?

[BetterThanLife]

How do you figure a Jump-1 ship would go bankrupt? A Jump-1 ship is the only one that can make its payments going one parsec at a time. A Jump 1 ship going three parsces still charges for three seperate tickets. (At KCr10 each.) A Jump-3 ship is just going to collect all KCr30 in one week instead of over the course of 5 weeks. (And since a Jump-3 ship costs quite a bit more than an equivalent Jump-1 ship and the additional fuel tankage means less passengers or less cargo ro both for the same tonnage) the difference in pay for the Jump-3 ship is offset by the greater expenses. (And the fact that you can't always go Jump-3.) A Jump-3 ship that doesn't go more than 4 parsecs a month with a full load will not quite make all its financial commitments. (Crew pay, mortgage, life support, maintenance fund, etc.) A jump-1 ship that goes two parsecs a month with a full load makes its bills with a tidy profit.

A jump-2 ship can't make a mortgage payment with full loads under the per jump not the per parsec method under the two weeks in jump two weeks in system per month typical model. A Jump-2 ship typically needs 3 jumps or 3 parsecs per month to make its payments.

SO a passenger that buys three tickets is still paying KCr30 that doesn't change. What does change is that a passenger that buys the ticket on a Jump-3 ship for the same three parsecs (non-stop) pays the same as he would have to pay on the two stop three Parsecs Jump-1 trip. (KCr30.) It doesn't say that a Jump-1 ship has to charge less than the passage rates, it says that the passage rates are the same regardless of the jump capacity of the ship. (Notice it doesn't say they are the same regardless of the distance of the trip.) It says teh jump capacity of the jump drive doesn't effect the fare. If a Jump-3 ship goes one parsec and a Jump-1 ship goes one parsec then they would charge the same. But it does specifically state that the Jump-3 ship costs the same to go three parsecs as the Jump-1 ship even though passage on the Jump-1 ship requires two intervening tickets for the complete journey.

Originally posted by Ben W Bell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aristotle Kzin:
Obvious to me - passage price depends ONLY on how far you're going, not the type of ship you take - a J3 ship and a J1 ship going to the same destination charge the same, even though the J3 ship can get there in one jump if it's 3 parsecs and the J1 has to make three jumps.

AK

But if that were the case then the jump 1 ship would go bankrupt very quickly as they wouldn't be able to cover their costs. A High passage ticket, in fact any ticket, in Traveller has always been good for one jump and one jump only irregardless of how large the jump is. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

The number one expense of a ship is the mortgage. The number two expense in a ship is the annual maintenance. Both of these are related to cost of the ship. The two biggest individual expenses in a starship under 1000T is the Jump Drive and the Powerplant with, depending on the size of the ship, is likely to be in the top 3 if you are flying a Jump-3 ship. A Jump 3 ship costs significantly more than a Jump-1 ship and has 26% less capacity. (Includes the 20% increase in the Fuel requirements, the 2% increase in Jumpdrive mass, the 2% increase in PP capacity required (TL15), (4% if it is TL13-14)and the 2% increase in required PP fuel. Potentially more because the increase in Drive sizes might require more crewmen and more staterooms. Your cost increase is, on a TL15 ship (more on a lower TL ship) MCr14 per 100 tons of ship. Plus a flat MCr16 to increase the computer from model 1 to model 3.

You have to charge by distance not time. Unless you break down the mortgage to reflect the cost per jump and raise your prices to cover your expenses. But then you are charging more for a jump-3 ship to go 1 parsec than a jump-1 ship to go one parsec.

Life support and fuel, in starship expenses are also ran categories. Generally it is Mortgage, setting aside money to take care of the mortgage while the ship is in annual maintenance, annual maintenance fund (1/12th of the annual maintenance, as a standard imperial year has 13 months you don't have to set aside maintenance for while you are actually in maintenance.) Crew salary, life support, fuel, berthing fees and cargo handlers.

Originally posted by Evo Plurion:
I think it means that one jump costs as much as another jump, regardless of the distance involved. However, if a jump-1 ship is taking you to a destination 3 parsecs away, you'll be a passenger for 3 jumps. Therefore, your trip will require 3 tickets for a total of 3 times the cost than if you took the same trip on a jump-3 ship.

Another way to look at it is to measure the cost of a trip based on travel time instead of distance. The slower ship in the example above takes 3 times as long as the faster ship to reach its destination. Therefore, your fare must cover three times the ship owner's expense for upkeep, life support, accommodation, etc.

 

[Ben W Bell]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
How do you figure a Jump-1 ship would go bankrupt?

I was refering to the ticket prices being the same. If the Jump 3 cost 10K for the ticket to travel 3 parsecs, and the Jump 1 charged 10K for the same trip the Jump 1 would not be able to make ends meet as it would be travelling longer for the same income.

 

[phil644441]

Seems to me there are arguments on both sides - a YMMV issue.

I used to work for the airlines and I always thought their pricing structures (from a layman's point of view) were pretty weird!

Isn't it still the case that it costs the same to fly from London to Tokyo by a major national airline (i.e. not a budget airline) whether you do it in one leg (British Airways) or two or three (most other airlines - and that all the major airlines cost roughly the same (again - not budget airlines)?

Cartels 'competing' with each other (is that an oxymoron?) will fix prices anyway so that they can stave off competition from 'new' competitors (see what happened to Laker and nearly to Virgin).

I always took the 'fixed price' in Traveller (admittedly when I played a long time ago, this is) to be a guideline - that there were small variations between carriers but that cartel/govt. sponsorship kept all the prices roughly the same...

AK

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Instead of talking about what the paragraph means when it is very clearly broken, wouldn't it be better to come up with a solution that does work?

GT:FT did. And I even came up with an explanation that preserves the canonical High, Middle, and Low Passages. Unfortunately I submitted it to JTAS and got it accepted, something that I now regret. But those of you who have JTAS subscriptions can see it at

http://jtas.sjgames.com/login/article.cgi?380


Hans

 

[rancke]

Instead of replying to them all individually, I'll respond to all suggestions that the per-jump prices are the result of government meddling here.

The Traveller rules are supposed to be universal. Litteraly. They are supposed to apply 'all across Charted Space'. Or, at least, they're supposed to be the baseline rules. Even if it were possible to come up with a price fixing scheme that actually worked (which I believe is not the case), it would still be setting-specific with a vengeance. Talk about non-generic! Not only does it only apply to universes with one specific set of laws of nature, it only applies to one specific government setup within those universes!

I wouldn't buy that explanation even if it worked.


Hans

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi folks,

as AK noted travelling costs are weird anyway.
I have to pay around 25 € to get to the railway station about 10 km away. (2,5 Euro/km)
Then I have to spend 15 € for the train to take me to the airport 100 km away. (0,15 Euro/km)
The plane takes me from Cologne to London for 100 €. That 500 km -> 0,125 Euro/km.
I also sometimes could fly to Barcelona for 20 Euro (Ryan Air).

So, IMHO the key factor for travel ticket prices is the thing called market, and thats a very complicate and weird thing in the real world.
Describing realistic/working market mechanics in the fictional Traveller universe is like trying to resolve an equotion with an uncounted number of unknown variables.

Thats the reason why CT/MT model is a bit abstract and maybe "inefficient" or partly "broken" too, but essentially it worked for every player group I had so far

And as always, there is nothing to stop refs from raise or decrease travel ticket costs as they want. The rules just tell, that these the given costs are "standards" but not that these are fixed.


Mert

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
And as always, there is nothing to stop refs from raise or decrease travel ticket costs as they want.

And, as usual, the fact that there is nothing to stop refs from changing things is no excuse for a bad rule.

The rules just tell, that these the given costs are "standards" but not that these are fixed.

It does not make sense for the given costs to be standard.


Hans

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by rancke:
Unfortunately I submitted it to JTAS and got it accepted, something that I now regret. But those of you who have JTAS subscriptions can see it at

Sample view of article

sidenote: Yet another example of why IMO e23 should open ASAP and allow the purchase of individual Pyramid/JTAS articles and issues. While I find the overall value worth the subscription cost many don't but might buy a few specific articles.

i.e. it's a good article

Casey (ducks out of thread)

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Hans, the only aspect for me to consider a rule to be "good" or "bad" is, that my players get along with it well.
They get even along with that before I tweaked this a little bit, by simply modifying travelling costs with inversed DMs from the "available cargo/freight" charts. But thats all.

Without any doubt there are more sophisticated and consistent rules out there (just thinking of GT-FT), but it all depends on what people/players like.

It does not make sense for the given costs to be standard.

Hans

Stretching it, no fixed cost, weight, volume or price value given as a standard in the rulesets makes sense...

Regards,

Mert
Rules are the user interface to your game - keep it simple

 

[vutpakdi]

Originally posted by Bhoins:

You have to charge by distance not time. Unless you break down the mortgage to reflect the cost per jump and raise your prices to cover your expenses. But then you are charging more for a jump-3 ship to go 1 parsec than a jump-1 ship to go one parsec.

Not necessarily. A J3 ship charging more than a J1 ship to go one parsec (both ships take a week to do the jump) won't get many takers unless there is no other option. Would you pay a higher airline ticket price just to be able to fly on a 747 vs a 737 over the same distance and time just because the airline bought a more expensive and longer legged plane?

It makes more economic sense on one hand to charge by distance, but in the real world, the cost for transport doesn't always reflect the distance travelled or the time required.

For example, I can mail a letter anywhere in the US for the same cost whether or not it is next door or to Alaska. On the other hand, packages do have a sliding scale by distance in some cases.

For airline tickets, the level of competition and demand is what determines the ticket price more than the distance (and thereby fuel and time) involved. Right now, it's cheaper for me to get a ticket from Houston to Barcelona than it is from Houston to Tuscon, Arizona because of the demand at this time of year and amount of competition.

All that said, I do think that it makes sense to have some sort of sliding scale for passage and freight costs for a 1 parsec jump vs a 3 parsec jump.

Ron

 

[TheEngineer]

Ok.
Lets use the tweak Hans presented in JTAS (or something similar).
Combine it with additonal cost modification by destination attractivity and this minor "bug" is patched.

What next ?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Aaah! Look at it from the other side. Don't lower the Jump-1 fare to get from point A to D, yo9u still have to buy the ticket from A to B, From B to C, then from C to D. Let the Jump-3 ship charge the same fare, even though it takes less time. (Raise the Jump-3 fare, but only if it is actually going from A-D in one jump.)

Originally posted by Ben W Bell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
How do you figure a Jump-1 ship would go bankrupt?

I was refering to the ticket prices being the same. If the Jump 3 cost 10K for the ticket to travel 3 parsecs, and the Jump 1 charged 10K for the same trip the Jump 1 would not be able to make ends meet as it would be travelling longer for the same income. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

Certainly it might make sense to really charge based on several factors. It may mean charging different rates all over space and market analysis and a host of other crap that, as a GM I don't really have time for. (How much competetion is there, what exactly does this UPP mean for the general market, etc.) The Per Parsec is a quick, simple and easily appliable model. I don't ahve to look at the different sections of the Galaxy, note that this week the Sword Worlds are particularily ticked at the Darians or some other such nonsense. WHile real world corporations might have to deal with that, MegaCorps would write that kind of thing and hate all the local market flux. Fixing prices makes sense to me, from a playability angle, the problem is that fixing prices at this level means the adventurers can't have a starship to travel about, and make payments on while they adventure, if the ship is greater than a Jump-1. The ship's economics should be a background thing, something that could lead to adventures because they couldn't find enough cargo and passengers to load up to pay the mortgage, but not something where they need a windfall of several Million Credits, on a regular basis to keep up.

I personally decided to ignore the first paragraph, the one that defines the per jump option and chose the second paragraph. And the primary reason is that it fixes the Loans for starships and relagates the starship economics to the background.

Making the Starship incapable of paying for itself means the characters would do what any corporation would do, cut their losses and dump the ship. (OR Skip with it.) Making the starship have a problem paying for itself once in a while is the hook for an adventure.

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Hi !

Hans, the only aspect for me to consider a rule to be "good" or "bad" is, that my players get along with it well.
They get even along with that before I tweaked this a little bit, by simply modifying travelling costs with inversed DMs from the "available cargo/freight" charts. But thats all.

Without any doubt there are more sophisticated and consistent rules out there (just thinking of GT-FT), but it all depends on what people/players like.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It does not make sense for the given costs to be standard.

Hans

Stretching it, no fixed cost, weight, volume or price value given as a standard in the rulesets makes sense...

Regards,

Mert
Rules are the user interface to your game - keep it simple </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[far-trader]

Well I'm really not sure where (or even if) I should vent this, now that the "problem" seems to have spread over, what, 3 topics

Look, it IS the rule for the OTU, but as has been noted for MTU or YTU nobody is forcing the issue. Discussion of ideas is great but I see the tone shifting to "this must be officially changed" and I just don't get it. Maybe it's just my paranoia.

To those saying no bank would give a loan to a J2 or higher ship based on the price structure I say you're right to a point. The rules say you can only get a loan with 20% down AND a business plan that shows you can make your payments. I'm pretty sure last time this came up I posted an old design I had for a J2 frieghter that did make it's payments, I'll look later.

Heck some PC's can't even do that for a J1 Free-Trader. How do you think they got that one they rolled in char-gen? That's right, some other trader with no idea how to make a business work under the rules didn't make his payments. I have seen a lot of ship designs that are cool and fun for player's but there's no way they'd make money with the price structure and a loan. The obvious solution (well to me at least) is they don't get a loan. They only get built IF some other payment plan is in place. Like a government subsidy or outright purchase.

And where did this generic idea come from? Just how generic do you want? I'm getting the impression some of you might only be satisfied if you were given blank paper and a full set of color pencils and pens and told it was a generic sci-fi game that you can make however you want. Would it be too limiting if it were named "Traveller"? Maybe "_______ Traveller _______" and you can fill in the blanks

The first 3 LBB were pretty generic. They provided a set of rules and structure to play. The OTU came later and was built on that foundation but it doesn't mean you couldn't make a totally different game out of the same rules.

Oh well, thanks for ignoring this little rant, please continue as you were

 

[mike wightman]

Well said Dan

 

[Commander Drax]

Hi Guys, I think I will join this one although I'm a little late.

My take on it is this, that the rules only apply to passage, not freight. You could argue that government legilsation means that passage prices are all the same as they reflect time spent aboard a ship, not the distance it is covering. So why not charge passengers a fixed amount of money per jump whilst simultaneously charging more for cargo, freight at Cr1000 per parsec works out to be pretty good, so a jump 3 ship could charge Cr3000 per ton and Cr8000 per mid passage sold etc, whilst a jump 2 vessel would charge Cr2000 per ton and Cr8000 per mid passage sold. The price fixing allows individuals into space and encourages commerce and tourism to the delight of any government, whilst companies that need freight transported will know that if its going to go 4 parsecs then each ton will cost Cr4000, the big benefit to them is that it will get to a destination 4 parsecs away next week as opposed to a month from now.

This would go someway to explaining the basic economic model inferred by traveller to support the fact that most commercial vessels have larger cargo holds than passenger spaces, e.g a 200 ton far trader might have a 66 ton hold for cargo and passenger space at 32 tons. If more money were to be made from passengers then following the economic model cargo holds would be small and passenger spaces vast.

In examining the integrity of the rule I've looked at the prices quoted for the subsidised liner on page 338 of the T20 rule book. At Mcr 238.386 she needs to meet a mortgage payment of Cr993,275 each month.... Ouch!

Following a typical merchant schedule, she can jump twice per month at 3 parsecs and with a 202 ton hold can generate.

202 x Cr3000 x 2 = Mcr 1,212 plus an additional 336,00 if only mid passage was sold.


21 staterooms x Cr 8000 x 2 = Cr 336,000

Total revenue (not including low berths) = Mcr 1,548,000 (She doesn't even need the subsidy!).

I think this is the best compromise that still maintains the spirit of the rules that set prices for quick and easy passenger trips. Hell these powerful long legged ships could even give discounts to regular shippers!

The subsidy would still be enormously valuable as after-all it will increase revenue dramatically and is fair compensation for having to stick to a regular route and be called up as a naval auxilary in times of trouble. It would also ensure that the vessel remains profitable if forced to jump only 1 parsec as opposed to its maximum and as such would be more like a guarantee from the governemnt than a subsidy.

Ignoring the subsidy issue, this compromise means that jump 3 ships won't be seen competing with jump 1 vessels though could if desired make a smaller profit competing against jump 2 vessels. A compromise such as this would encourage long legged thoroughbreds such as this to actively stick to routes that make most use of their big drives;
Let me know what you think?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Look, it IS the rule for the OTU, but as has been noted for MTU or YTU nobody is forcing the issue. Discussion of ideas is great but I see the tone shifting to "this must be officially changed" and I just don't get it. Maybe it's just my paranoia.

I never said you had to use either rule. However the paragraph quoted comes right from three different incarnations of the Rulebook. Whether it is in TNE, T4, or GT I have no idea. It appears to flatly contradict the paragraph before it in LBB2.

To those saying no bank would give a loan to a J2 or higher ship based on the price structure I say you're right to a point. The rules say you can only get a loan with 20% down AND a business plan that shows you can make your payments. I'm pretty sure last time this came up I posted an old design I had for a J2 frieghter that did make it's payments, I'll look later.

Heck some PC's can't even do that for a J1 Free-Trader. How do you think they got that one they rolled in char-gen? That's right, some other trader with no idea how to make a business work under the rules didn't make his payments. I have seen a lot of ship designs that are cool and fun for player's but there's no way they'd make money with the price structure and a loan. The obvious solution (well to me at least) is they don't get a loan. They only get built If some other payment plan is in place. Like a government subsidy or outright purchase.

I never said players wouldn't default on a loan. I never said merchants wouldn't default even with a J-1 ship. You may have a CT design that does make its payments and expenses. I personally have been trying for years and can't figure the right mix and the "Standard Designs" certainly can't. And certainly not at the lower tech levels where powerplants are bigger and less effecient.

I would love to see a Jump-2 Trader that can pay its own way at Jump-2 and higher.

Now T20 does have "Priority Cargo" to help out with this. And you can take a Far Trader and run between SACNOTH to GRAM ad nauseum and make your payments. There are several places where that works in the Solomani Rim as well. There is even a place in the Solomani Rim where you can run between two systems with a SubLiner and make payments. But the ships are still inherently incapable of paying for themselves.

I am aware that the Jump regardless of distance is the generally accepted way things go and in Adventure 13 Signal GK it is specifically mentioned that way. It is further mentioned specifically in T20. (Both before and after the paragraph.)

I personally want to see how that paragraph is read given the passage price is regardless of distance rule. And wonder why that paragraph keeps stubbornly popping up in each revision of the rules since it definitely contradicts the notion of Passage regardless of distance. It states passage regardless of Jump drive, not regardless of distance.

 

[Commander Drax]

As I've implied in earlier posts, the paragraph mentioned doesn't specifically say anything about freight, just passage which can be seen as a fee paid for one week's travel aboard a starship. Use your own rules for cargo or indeed your own rules for passage. There's no one out there holding a gun to your head and making you use the pre-printed rules. Just do what you think is right. I've already posted my take on it that I can live with, i.e that it only applies to passengers not cargo and that's good enough for me...

No flame intended.

I have recently created an optional rule set designed to simulate a free market economy in traveller and the effect it has on goods and services which I use in my own gaming sessions, if there's enough interest I'll post them here.

 

[Malenfant]

Well, there's already a tome on Traveller economics (written by someone who actually has an economic background) that makes sense of all this - it's called GT: Far Trader.

Yes, it changes a few things to get something workable. That's the point of the exercise though, because unless you change a few things it can't make sense at all.

I don't quite understand why people don't want to use that and solve the problem.