Which becomes problematic when you realize everybody can do that, not just the player characters. Because if they can, they will, and already have done so by the time the player characters enter the scene.
CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Which might be where time to market comes in.
Pity you can't reliably squeeze the real time length of transition, or you could have clipper races.
Pity you can't reliably squeeze the real time length of transition, or you could have clipper races.
You can, if you allow freight to be shipped with multiple jumps. (J2 beats 2xJ1, J3 beats J2+J1, but J3+J1 ties with J2+J2, loses to J4.)
Lower Jn consecutively (with internal tanks) is still more costly than single-jump to same distance due to lower operations tempo.
Drop tanks? Might be useful, might not. Maneuver Gs can cut time to refuel.
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Standard delivery times after booking cargo is 4 days.
You can speed that up, but it costs +10% per day shaved off the delivery to your ship (so if you want cargo delivered TODAY to take away, you're paying a +40% premium on a rushed delivery).
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. Containerization.
2. Slingshot boost to transition area?
2. Slingshot boost to transition area?
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
You again ignored my point. "Port-of-call to port-of-call" must still be per parsec if jump capacity is to have no effect on passage price.If the billing is done from port of call to port of call ... then the "jump drive capacity has no specific effect" other than putting the destination within range IS TRUE. The pathing taken between the two ports of call DOES NOT MATTER. If a captain wants to go "the long way around" and waste time (and fuel and life support and crew salaries) between points A and B, that's their choice ... but they aren't going to be getting paid extra because they made the journey longer.
Pricing per jump OR per parsec invites, encourages and even rewardsdegenerate abuse of the rules.
That's why you don't bill that way as a Referee.
That's why the correct interpretation is FROM PORT OF CALL TO PORT OF CALL ... full stop ... because the port of call to port of call interpretation leaves no "wiggle room" for abusive degenerate gamer behavior to take root and.flourish.
The quote from page 7 (iirc) is: "The referee should determine" loads and passengers for each destination in reach. "Should determine" is not "must and may only determine" for destinations within one jump. Nothing actually defines what "in reach" means.
Sure, you can claim to divine what "in reach" might mean. "In reach" might be as simple as "we don't want to (or don't have fuel to) jump via that empty hex to cross that void, so we consider hexes on the far side to be out of reach."
We can apply basic rules-independent economics and come to a reasonable outcome. We are going to the hex across the void from us, but nobody wants to book us for four jumps when they can wait up to six weeks for a J2 and get there faster than we can.
Nothing demands that the ship be emptied of passengers and freight for hire just because the ship reaches a "port-of-call." Nothing in the rules says you cannot carry passengers or freight for more than one jump.
Also, your example of "degenerate gamer behavior" is assinine, and immaterial. If a J3 could book Regina to Hefry and then make two intermediate jumps in empty hexes, so could a J1 with enough fuel make the same route to get to Hefry.
Just as you wave your definition wand and assert that port-of-call has your special meaning, we can wave the definition wand and say that booking a destination includes the route, and that no passengers or freight shippers would book a ship taking such a route.
Oh, wait a minute. We don't have to wave any definition wands to do that. Everyone has to pay passage up front. If one ship wants to charge 3x what other ships are charging to get to Hefry, nobody books with that ship. Looky there: Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad "degenerate gamer behavior" avoided without hiring a rules lawyer to litigate.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
In space, no one can hear your Yelp review.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I. Ignored. YOUR. Point?
AGAIN?
And ... you've ignored my point ... made with demonstration case and map to make it obvious (and irrefutable).
Um ... there's nothing left of that hair for you to try and split (yet again) ... so stop trying?
Nothing aside from their tickets and manifest bookings that determine "Point A to Point B" that is.
If you want to stay on the ship beyond the first port of call ... you buy another ticket to the (wait for it!) ... second port of call (wherever that might be).
C'mon now, this isn't rocket surgery.
And you're saying that because it completely demolished your argument and stated position quite thoroughly from beginning to end.
So naturally the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from the demonstration must be discarded and declared "invalid" (somehow).
Thank you for playing.
You're the one saying ... and I quote you directly ... "Nothing actually defines what 'in reach' means."
That statement alone tells me that "reasonable" is Not Being Allowed™ to begin with in this discussion by (at least) one of us from the start.
Guess who is being reasonable.
Go on ... guess.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Except we are told what within reach means...
Once again, jump number, not jump range, not if you refuel 27 times... within jump number.
Jump number 1 - all adjacent worlds 1 parsec distance
Jump number 2 - all adjacent worlds 1 or 2 parsecs distance
Jump number 3 - all adjacent worlds 1, 2 or 3 parsecs distance.
etc.
If you have a jump 1 ship and opt to carry a cargo to a world 1 parsec away you do it in one jump. A passenger would be charged one middle or high passage.
If you have a jump 2 (or higher) ship and opt to carry a cargo to a world 2 parsecs away you do it in one jump, you do not do it in two jump 1s. A passenger would be charged one middle or high passage.
Now let's see if we can finally put to bed that passenger ticket example:
Once again, jump number, not jump range, not if you refuel 27 times... within jump number.
Jump number 1 - all adjacent worlds 1 parsec distance
Jump number 2 - all adjacent worlds 1 or 2 parsecs distance
Jump number 3 - all adjacent worlds 1, 2 or 3 parsecs distance.
etc.
If you have a jump 1 ship and opt to carry a cargo to a world 1 parsec away you do it in one jump. A passenger would be charged one middle or high passage.
If you have a jump 2 (or higher) ship and opt to carry a cargo to a world 2 parsecs away you do it in one jump, you do not do it in two jump 1s. A passenger would be charged one middle or high passage.
Now let's see if we can finally put to bed that passenger ticket example:
In Book 7, Merchant Prince, is the identical passenger and freight system that's in Book 2.
They have this line under the table for income.
"Ships receive the following income per trip:"
Emphasis mine.
In MT, where, again, they have the identical system for passengers and freight, it says:
"The standard price for shipping freight is Cr1000 per ton. The payment covers shipment in the cargo hold from the current location to the starship’s next port of call."
It also says:
"The ship captain must select and designate a destination world within jump range".
All 3 books, Book 2, Book 7, MT.
The identical system, is in TNE.
Where they have this sentence:
"Passage is always sold to interested prospective passengers on the basis of transport to an announced destination one jump away, rather than on the basis of jump distance."
Book2 '81, Page 9:
"Passengers will pay the standard fare for the class of transportation they choose: Cr10,000 for high passage, Cr8,000 for middle passage, and Cr1,000 for low passage. Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance."
It says the same thing on page 8 of Book 2 '77.
Again, these are all the same systems. Across 16 years of game development, and the intent has been clear across all of them.
They have this line under the table for income.
"Ships receive the following income per trip:"
Emphasis mine.
In MT, where, again, they have the identical system for passengers and freight, it says:
"The standard price for shipping freight is Cr1000 per ton. The payment covers shipment in the cargo hold from the current location to the starship’s next port of call."
It also says:
"The ship captain must select and designate a destination world within jump range".
All 3 books, Book 2, Book 7, MT.
The identical system, is in TNE.
Where they have this sentence:
"Passage is always sold to interested prospective passengers on the basis of transport to an announced destination one jump away, rather than on the basis of jump distance."
Book2 '81, Page 9:
"Passengers will pay the standard fare for the class of transportation they choose: Cr10,000 for high passage, Cr8,000 for middle passage, and Cr1,000 for low passage. Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance."
It says the same thing on page 8 of Book 2 '77.
Again, these are all the same systems. Across 16 years of game development, and the intent has been clear across all of them.
It never was arguable what the RAW was, pay per jump. Common sense economics says per parsec just for fuel and more expensive sunk capital in ship capability plus lost revenue opportunity tons.
Like I said, can be justified by setting but may not work for others.
Decide what works for your universe, that’s it.
Or argue whether that should be the one thing to fix per the topic, just not that it’s been anything else.
Like I said, can be justified by setting but may not work for others.
Decide what works for your universe, that’s it.
Or argue whether that should be the one thing to fix per the topic, just not that it’s been anything else.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
The arguments (for per parsec pricing) have been weighed, have been measured ... and been absolutely found wanting.
Last edited:
That is actually a slight oversimplification of the rule as written “The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number)”.
If my Jump 1 ship has 20% jump fuel (enough for TWO consecutive Jump 1’s) then “all worlds accessible to the ship” includes all worlds 1 parsec away and all worlds 2 parsecs away. If we assume a typical straight line “main”, then that is 4 worlds “accessible” to that ship. Crossing empty hexes in a crowded part of the map there could be a LOT of worlds “accessible” (18 hexes worth if I counted correctly, 6 hexes at 1 parsec away and 12 more hexes at 2 parsecs away).
The price for 1 dTon of cargo is Cr 1000 from port of origin to port of destination.
Last edited:
I disagree.
They are not the Rules as written, but they are not “wanting”.
Later editions adopted them so how terrible of an idea can they be?
Is it really the end of the world if a J3 ship does not operate at a loss shipping freight and passengers?
Shrug, in your opinion.The arguments (for per parsec pricing) have been weighed, have been measured ... and been absolutely found wanting.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
@whartung quoted "chapter and verse" above from:
- LBB2.77
- LBB2.81
- LBB7
- MT
- TNE
It's not "in my opinion" ... it's in the Rules As Written.
The challenge has been getting people to recognize and understand what was actually written (and what it actually means in actual practice) rather than stubbornly clinging to their wrong interpretations and refusing to budge no matter how much evidence to the contrary is put in front of them from original sources.
It's also quite frustrating.
The exception is GURPS Traveller, which explicitly broke with precedent and wrote the rules for GURPS Traveller as being per parsec pricing (probably just to make merchant characters have an easier time at getting rich in their ruleset).
I don’t think you are seeing what I am saying.
Yes it is RAW that it’s pay by jump, I agree with that assertion.
It is not invalid to go with pay per parsec just because the rules say otherwise.
Rule Zero is the supreme rule and I think you are stepping over a line if you are arguing that no one should change the pay rules for their universe just because RAW, or they are wrong expressing a preference to see it changed for the putative one thing to change.
Yes it is RAW that it’s pay by jump, I agree with that assertion.
It is not invalid to go with pay per parsec just because the rules say otherwise.
Rule Zero is the supreme rule and I think you are stepping over a line if you are arguing that no one should change the pay rules for their universe just because RAW, or they are wrong expressing a preference to see it changed for the putative one thing to change.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
<heavy sigh>
Ok, you want to be that way...
No! I memed the "guidelines" from PofC franchise, and there are pirates in Traveller but no Spiderman. So I win. So says everybody on the interwebs. Just ask them.
I'll explain using simple words. "Ignore" means that you didn't address the point, which is that jump capacity doesn't change a passage price.
If you want to go from A to B, two parsecs distant, and there is a J1 ship going there and a J2 ship going there, per jump pricing would mean J1 would cost twice as much. But if passage cost is to be jump capacity neutral, the solution is per parsec pricing.
I apparently "ignored" your point by addressing it directly. Which is quite a trick of mental gymnastics on your part.
Actually, I mocked your point as assinine. Perhaps that caused your argument circuitry to blow a fuse, wiping out memory of the sentence that blew the fuse.
Again, I'll explain with small words. If your only point is that per parsec pricing would be broken if the GM lets players charge passengers and shippers for flying in circles, you failed to make a point. Except that GMs shouldn't tolerate that kind of stupidity.
There is no reason why a J1 ship can't book passengers or cargo to a destination more than 1 parsec away. The rule says GM "should" generate passengers and cargos to destinations "accessible... (depending on jump number)."
If the GM knows the players are heading to a planet several jumps away, perhaps carrying spec cargo, then the GM "should" generate such passengers and incidental cargo to and from any stops along the way.
If there is a void, and neither players nor GM schemes call for any destinations on the other side, those destinations "should" be ignored even if they would be in range of a ship with long legs, or closer than planets the players intend to visit.
The GM could look at the table and decide that the number of passengers going to a high pop planet three jumps away should be reduced by a random number who will only tolerate passage in one jump, so be it. That GM made the determination "depending on jump number."
The rule doesn't say that "accessible" is somehow restricted to jump number. What the GM does should depend on jump number.
MM could have said, "No multijump destinations" if that's what he INTENDED (to which you give much weight). He didn't do that, instead he gave an example of a destination three parsecs away and said the J1 would require three "tickets." He put the example under the explanation of jump number having "no specific effect" on price. That can only be true if distance is part of cost.
I agree that the intent of the rules (plural and in general) leans toward per jump, but insist that AS WRITTEN it leaves the door open for per parsec. AS WRITTEN gives a specific example of J1 booking and charging three parsecs away. LW wrote GURPS as per parsec, which lends further credence to the flexibility of interpretation.
More important still is my point that per parsec pricing MAKES SENSE, while per jump does not. That is continually ignored by self-appointed apostles of per jump pricing.
Ok, you want to be that way...
Ooooh, he can write "One. Word. At. A. Time." Because that always means you win, nya nya. So does meming Jameson's laugh. Automatic win.I. Ignored. YOUR. Point?
AGAIN?
No! I memed the "guidelines" from PofC franchise, and there are pirates in Traveller but no Spiderman. So I win. So says everybody on the interwebs. Just ask them.
I'll explain using simple words. "Ignore" means that you didn't address the point, which is that jump capacity doesn't change a passage price.
If you want to go from A to B, two parsecs distant, and there is a J1 ship going there and a J2 ship going there, per jump pricing would mean J1 would cost twice as much. But if passage cost is to be jump capacity neutral, the solution is per parsec pricing.
Ooooh, he made a map, Because that always means you win, too.
I apparently "ignored" your point by addressing it directly. Which is quite a trick of mental gymnastics on your part.
Actually, I mocked your point as assinine. Perhaps that caused your argument circuitry to blow a fuse, wiping out memory of the sentence that blew the fuse.
Again, I'll explain with small words. If your only point is that per parsec pricing would be broken if the GM lets players charge passengers and shippers for flying in circles, you failed to make a point. Except that GMs shouldn't tolerate that kind of stupidity.
What "tickets" are you talking about? What "manifest?" The game doesn't have them. I suppose you could have players print up tickets for the imaginary passengers and manifests for imaginary cargo lots if they want to play booking agents in space instead of Traveller.
There is no reason why a J1 ship can't book passengers or cargo to a destination more than 1 parsec away. The rule says GM "should" generate passengers and cargos to destinations "accessible... (depending on jump number)."
If the GM knows the players are heading to a planet several jumps away, perhaps carrying spec cargo, then the GM "should" generate such passengers and incidental cargo to and from any stops along the way.
If there is a void, and neither players nor GM schemes call for any destinations on the other side, those destinations "should" be ignored even if they would be in range of a ship with long legs, or closer than planets the players intend to visit.
The GM could look at the table and decide that the number of passengers going to a high pop planet three jumps away should be reduced by a random number who will only tolerate passage in one jump, so be it. That GM made the determination "depending on jump number."
The rule doesn't say that "accessible" is somehow restricted to jump number. What the GM does should depend on jump number.
MM could have said, "No multijump destinations" if that's what he INTENDED (to which you give much weight). He didn't do that, instead he gave an example of a destination three parsecs away and said the J1 would require three "tickets." He put the example under the explanation of jump number having "no specific effect" on price. That can only be true if distance is part of cost.
I agree that the intent of the rules (plural and in general) leans toward per jump, but insist that AS WRITTEN it leaves the door open for per parsec. AS WRITTEN gives a specific example of J1 booking and charging three parsecs away. LW wrote GURPS as per parsec, which lends further credence to the flexibility of interpretation.
More important still is my point that per parsec pricing MAKES SENSE, while per jump does not. That is continually ignored by self-appointed apostles of per jump pricing.
Agreed, but, that said, per-parsec payment (while more plausible than per-jump) skews things too, but in a different direction.
Just dropping that change in without a thorough understanding of the knock-on effects can have unintended and perhaps undesirable effects.
As unrealistic (and IMO broken) as the normal interpretation of RAW is, it does work tolerably well within its limits, and shouldn't be discarded without a comprehensive replacement economic framework in place.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Me: <cites GURPS> See? Per parsec is the only interpretation that makes sense.
Nothing forbids announcing a destination more than 1 jump away. Neither the number of jumps, nor the distance of those jumps matter if pricing is per parsec distance.
Reminds me of Three Easy Pieces. Paraphrased:
Gimme toast
We don't sell toast
Can you toast a sandwich?
Sure
Gimme an egg salad sandwich, toasted
Sure
Can you put the egg salad on the side?
Sure
Then just don't bring me the egg salad
What do I do with the egg salad?
<response redacted for indecency>
In Trav terms:
Can you take me to C?
Nope, can only do J1. We're going to B
Are you going to C from B?
Sure
B is a class D fueling station. No ticket agents. If you took me to B, how do I get a ticket to C?
I guess we have to sell that to you while we're here at A
So then you can take me to C
<rules lawyer's head explodes>
Similar threads
MT Only:
Advantage in Tasks