Do you think T5 will be out while Mongoose has a license?

[aramis]

I suppose that I am just struggling to understand why it is taking so long to "finish" the game.

Marc has much higher standards than many other designers for consistency and playtest.

T4, for example... the material Marc wrote was high quality writing (and the layout guy screwed it up). Almost no surviving typos; lots of ayout errors.

 

[scrabble]

Design a few of your own with similar scope and take them to playtest and editing. You'll figure it out.

I do not need to do that. We already know that it has been developed enough to publish in a usable form on the playtest CD, and that was quite a while ago. If so many people are on the playtest then there really should not be any excuse for it to take so long to finalize since then.

High standards are all very well, but if they are set so high that the game is never released or is continually delayed for "one last fix", then the credibility of the designer is only going to suffer. I would argue that it already has suffered given the deadlines that have already been missed.

And this is Traveller we are talking about, so no matter how "perfect" Mr Miller makes T5, it simply can not please everyone.

 

[robject]

And this is Traveller we are talking about, so no matter how "perfect" Mr Miller makes T5, it simply can not please everyone.

So true. That would be an impossible goal.

 

[lucasdigital]

I do not need to do that. We already know that it has been developed enough to publish in a usable form on the playtest CD, and that was quite a while ago. If so many people are on the playtest then there really should not be any excuse for it to take so long to finalize since then.

High standards are all very well, but if they are set so high that the game is never released or is continually delayed for "one last fix", then the credibility of the designer is only going to suffer. I would argue that it already has suffered given the deadlines that have already been missed.

And this is Traveller we are talking about, so no matter how "perfect" Mr Miller makes T5, it simply can not please everyone.

Everyone wants a big black hardback edition T5 to unwrap for Christmas, it's not there yet. If you're frustrated with the long wait - that is why the CD is available. For those of us who are desperate to get our hands on T5 AND are happy with its "almost there" status.

If you're convinced the playtest CD is developed enough to publish...then surely it's developed enough for you to buy? Otherwise, well, here in the UK that's called having your cake and eating it.

Sure, T5 has taken an awful long time to develop...but then look at the computer game Starcraft 2. With a very large development team working for 4 years, for a game that could hardly be said to be revolutionary. Its Q1 2010 deadline is still not certain.

 

[aramis]

Not everyone, Mr. Lucas.... I'd rather have a CD of PDFs and/or ePubs in a nice black slipcase, to be totally honest. Now, a nice 10x7.5" display ebook reader to read it on in black, with a red stripe on a black leather cover.....

 

[Shadowfax]

If you want peanuts, you have to buy the T5 CD...

www.farfuture.net

Already did and got it! = )

 

[robject]

Everyone wants a big black hardback edition T5 to unwrap for Christmas...

Oooohhhh... shivers of anticipation

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Merry Xmas

 

[Supplement Four]

Merry Xmas

If only that were so...even the cover blows the Mongoose stuff away (and I actually like the MGT covers with the black and the line with the half arrowhead).

 

[robject]

If only that were so...even the cover blows the Mongoose stuff away (and I actually like the MGT covers with the black and the line with the half arrowhead).

That's Andrew's artwork, which appears on the CD-ROM cover by the way.

 

[Valanti]

Even though I know it isn't happening, I love the spiral bound mockup.

 

[Space Hamster]

While I do not know what is happening behind the scene on the project, and I am not saying this is vaporware. People must realize perfection is never realized. I am a software engineer by trade. The fact that the engineer fields exist is proof that the perfect design is never achieved. If it was then you could never improve it. When I look back at code I did a year ago, I wonder why I did it that way.

I used to work for Boeing and one of the things they drilled into our heads was not to make changes unless the existing system did not work. Us designers would look at some of our past work and think, damn I better change this because this is not the correct way to do this. We did not want somebody to look at our work and wonder what an idiot we were for doing it that way. The way it was done worked fine but could have been done better.

One of the major problems with constant changes is that it invalidates past assumptions. You might look at the change and say; this is a real minor change and is low risk. You implement the change and later realize that it totally changes this other assumption and now you need to change this other section to work with it. Now this new section change changes an assumption over in this other section and you get a cascading set of changes that grossly changes the scope of the original minor change.

Here is an article that talks about the failure of Duke Nukem Forever. Again I am not saying this is where this project is going, but if a goal is not set it can go this direction. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem/

 

[robject]

[...]
One of the major problems with constant changes is that it invalidates past assumptions. [...] you [end up with] a cascading set of changes that grossly changes the scope of the original minor change.

[...] if a goal is not set it can go this direction.

Yes, I've seen that happen as well, though with software engineering projects I've been more fortunate than you: most of them have had requirements nailed down and regular reality/sanity checks with good management.

Marc spent a long time thinking about T5 and toying with concepts before he started writing the draft. He had material and concepts from 1977 to 1998 to mull over, defining concepts to distill, and a local minimum of complexity to seek. So the changes are not in the assumptions but (1) error corrections and (2) refinements. And a lot of editing.

The revisions Marc has posted change nothing about the core mechanics, which was the one thing he took the longest to decide on and the first thing he nailed down. Then people like me started asking "why in the world are you doing X/Y/Z?". When the successive chapters started coming out, then I started to see how a particular decision, generalization, specialization, or mechanism fit his vision. Or, perhaps, I started to see what form his vision took.

In short, Marc nailed down his requirements the way he wanted them, then started to work. He's always worked slowly with T5, for whatever reason. I'm tempted to say he's working on a dozen other things at the same time, but I wonder, if he had all the time in the world if he'd go that much faster.

 

[Space Hamster]

Yes, I've seen that happen as well, though with software engineering projects I've been more fortunate than you: most of them have had requirements nailed down and regular reality/sanity checks with good management.
<snip>

My management tells us they want an application that does blah. We make an application that does blah, they then say no that is not right. Change this to that. This cycle continues until they say this is taking too long. This is close enough, just make the last couple changes and deploy. We do not do shrink wrapped software. All in house development.

 

[robject]

My management tells us they want an application that does blah. We make an application that does blah, they then say no that is not right. Change this to that. This cycle continues until they say this is taking too long. This is close enough, just make the last couple changes and deploy. We do not do shrink wrapped software. All in house development.

Crapitty crap crap. Sounds truly wonderful, not. Requirements gathering is not easy; project management ain't either. But those who are good at it make it look easy.

 

[Sturn]

While I completely understand the comparison (and loved the Duke Nukem Fornever article-thanks Hamster), I think a key difference is T5 is text, not a program. One of the core problems in the Duke Nukem comparison was having to update a program yearly to to keep up with current computer technology. This wouldn't apply to T5 (well, once you made tweaks to the orginal tech section due to advances since 1977).

Once a pencil and paper game system is 'perfect' (if that's possible), it will always be perfect with no worries about updating for new technology in the computer industry.

The comparison of never releasing the product because the designer is never satisfied with it of course still applies.

 

[Space Hamster]

While I completely understand the comparison (and loved the Duke Nukem Fornever article-thanks Hamster), I think a key difference is T5 is text, not a program. One of the core problems in the Duke Nukem comparison was having to update a program yearly to to keep up with current computer technology. This wouldn't apply to T5 (well, once you made tweaks to the orginal tech section due to advances since 1977).

Once a pencil and paper game system is 'perfect' (if that's possible), it will always be perfect with no worries about updating for new technology in the computer industry.

The comparison of never releasing the product because the designer is never satisfied with it of course still applies.

First off your first two paragraphs are contradictory. In the first paragraph you say the game system just needs tweaks for the update in technology since 1977. The second paragraph you say that there will be no need to upgrade later for updates in technology. The second paragraph says the changes in the first paragraph are unnecessary, and the first paragraph says that changes will be needed later as technology (and I am not talking just computer technology here) changes. And by the way, programs are just text to the programmers. All I do at work is write text all day. It takes a bunch of effort from me to not slap a wall of text up on these posts.

I am not saying engineers are stupid, as I am one. What I am saying is that technology will always increase because somebody will always come up with a better way to do things. I buy many different RPGs because I like to see the different ideas people have for doing them. In a lot of ways game design is a lot like computer programs. As you look at an application you deal with the UI (User Interface). If the UI is well done the application is easy to use and intuitive. If the UI is poorly done then the application is very hard for the user to use and they will make many mistakes while using it. Of all the game systems I have read there are some that appear easier than others. One of the things that modifies this is the users expectation. I am one of the people that likes a detailed system so I like some complexity in the game system.

The third paragraph is the heart of what I am saying. I have been trying to create a campaign to run for the last three plus years. I am still at square one. My problem is there are about eight or nine systems I want to use. As I start working on one system, I start wanting to use another. My mind is chaotic like that. Now Mr. Miller is not in this boat. He is most the way through. What generated my original post is that it has been quite some time since the preorders started. It was thought it may not take much more time. I believe Robject may be one of the people in the know, and has stated in his past post that it is not getting a revamp so this is a good sign. He stated he thinks that it has not gotten the time that Mr. Miller would like to give it. With as fast as Mongoose has been putting out material for MGT I can understand this.

 

[Sturn]

The point I was trying to make is that if I write a "perfect" paragraph about game mechanic X with a quill and ink upon parchment, it would still be identical to the same paragraph written with a stylus. If I wrote a "perfect" routine for a computer game mechanic using MS Basic in 1977, it would have to be completely re-written for a modern computer using a different language and to partake of new computer abilities.

I mentioned Traveller technology only because I figured someone else would mention how it would need to be updated due to what we now know. Some of course are completely against even this and there are threads here to attest to it. What I meant was that the only thing that could possibly be updated due to the passage of time (for a mythological "perfect" Traveller game) were the descriptions of TL's and some equipment.

If I had made the comparison to a non-scifi game like D&D, there wouldn't be a need to mention the technology chapter. But this is a Traveller forum so I used it for comparison. If Gygax had somehow written a "perfect" edition of D&D in 1980, it would still be completely perfect today, and completely perfect in 100 years no matter how much technology advanced. Only the medium the original text was upon would change. A "perfect" D&D computer game from 1980 would not be "perfect" or even playable by a modern audience.

 

[aramis]

The point I was trying to make is that if I write a "perfect" paragraph about game mechanic X with a quill and ink upon parchment, it would still be identical to the same paragraph written with a stylus. If I wrote a "perfect" routine for a computer game mechanic using MS Basic in 1977, it would have to be completely re-written for a modern computer using a different language and to partake of new computer abilities.

Except that linguistic drift will render it awkward in 50-100 years, and notably archaic in twice that.

 

[Sturn]

Except that linguistic drift will render it awkward in 50-100 years, and notably archaic in twice that.

Still a mountain better then obsolete within a year for a computer game. With half a century until it is just "awkward" sounding, I think Mr. Miller can take his time* without fear of his system being trash because of a change in technology (like a computer game).

*This is in no way suggestive that I want MM to take another half-century to make T5 perfect!.