MT: Robots 1 - 2 Robot Size Table Pricing

[snrdg082102]

I am still working my way through MT: Robots and trying to incorporate the new bits into the tables in MT: RM Design system. The price for two prices on the Robot Extended Chassis table duplicates existing ones in MT: RM Vehicle Table. I have been trying to determine the relationship between pricing and the other three chassis/hull characteristics. So far my efforts have yield only a headache. Luckily, I have only used up virtual paper. Anyway the question is

Has anyone figured out the how the base chassis/hull price was calculated?

At this point my only recommendation is to change the prices to conform to the pricing progression. Supporting documentation would make me feel better.

Thanks for whatever any and all help.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Hi Tom,

Is it not a progression from the existing MT design sequence?

Johnathon? How did you work these out?

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi Tom,

Is it not a progression from the existing MT design sequence?

Johnathon? How did you work these out?

Best regards,

Ewan

Hello Ewan,

Sorry about the use of the term progression, unfortunately that was the best term I could come up with.

In MT: RM UCP 0.130 = Cr2200, MT: Robots UCP 148 = Cr2000, and MT: RM 0.185 = Cr2400.

Without using the MT Extrapolation rules the Robots UCP price should fall between the two established MT: RM Prices.

Jonathan appears to have used the MT Extrapolation rule and a comparison between CT: Robots.

Sorry running late for an appointment.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Ewan,

I'm sorry about the earlier post there was a local glitch in my time space. Anyway, here is a better answer.

I have been in contact with Jonathan about the difference between the Robot and Vehicle chassis pricing. In the reply the method by importing the CT: Book 8 Robots Chassis Size Table volume entries and then using the MT: RM Craft Design Extrapolation rule.

Prior to contacting Jonathan and starting this topic I created a spreadsheet to automate the extrapolation process, including the extrapolation clarification found in the Consolidated MT Errata document.

The weight extrapolation for UCP 0.148 and 0.222 worked okay. Using the extrapolation process I used both UCP and Volume to get the modifier which came out to be the same.

MT: RM UCP 0.130 = 1750 liters = Price 2200, MT: Robots UCP 0.148 = 2000 liters, and MT: RM UCP 0.185 = 2500 liters = Price 2400.

For this example I'm using volume:

Lower MT: RM Chassis value
round(MT: Robot 2000 liters ÷ MT: RM 1750,2) = round(1.142857,2) = 1.14. Price 2200 x 1.14 = 2508.

The extrapolated price using the lower MT: RM chassis of UCP 0.130 to exceeds the price of the higher MT: Chassis UCP of 0.185.

Higher MT: RM Chassis
round(MT: Robot 2000 liters ÷ MT: RM 2500,2) = round(0.8000,2) = 0.8. Price 2200 x 0.8 = 1920.

This time the extrapolated price, without rounding, is under the lower UCP value. Round(1920,-3) = 2000.

The next step was to check the other two tables. Extrapolation works as advertised in the Small Craft table. Unfortunately, the method begins to get shaky on the Space Vessel table for UCP 50000, 75000, and 100000. From 100000 to 500000 the extrapolation process works again and then begins to be less reliable for 50000, 700000, and 900000.

I'm exploring the use of the TNE FF&S Interpolation method which seems to do a better job for the Vehicle table.

Other than that the only other suggestion is to take the average of the extrapolated prices and round(average(2508:1920,-1) = round(2214,-1) = 2210.

Anyone have a better method?

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Ewan has it exactly right. The starting point was the "chassis" table in Book 8: Robots.

Volume  Weight Price
(L)     (kg)   (Cr)
5        0.5   1500
10       1.0   2500
20       2.0   4000
50       5.0   7500
80       8.0   9500
100     10.0   1000
150     15.0   1500
200     20.0   2000
350     35.0   2500
500     50.0   3000
750     75.0   3500
1000   100.0   4000
2000   200.0   5000
3000   300.0   6000

For all volumes under 100 litres, if you divide the price by 10, you get the following.

[FONT="Courier New"]Volume  Weight Price
(L)     (kg)   (Cr)
5        0.5   150
10       1.0   250
20       2.0   400
50       5.0   750
80       8.0   950
100     10.0   1000
150     15.0   1500
200     20.0   2000
350     35.0   2500
500     50.0   3000
750     75.0   3500
1000   100.0   4000
2000   200.0   5000
3000   300.0   6000[/FONT]

This is a progression that makes more sense - smaller hull sizes need less work and materials to make. Note that the progression is not linear, and the price per litre of hull increases as the size gets smaller.

Rob Prior's table in his text was:

[FONT="Courier New"]
Hull Size  Volume  Weight  Price
(UCP)        (L)    (kg)    (Cr)
--------------------------------
0.00035       5     0.5     75
0.0007       10     1.0    100
0.0014       20     2.0    200
0.0035       50     5.0    300
0.0056       80     8.0    350
0.0070      100    10.0    400[/FONT]

If you compare the listing for the 500, 750 and 1000 litre hulls in the MegaTraveller Referee's Manual, you get the following comparison

[FONT="Courier New"]        ---Book 8--- ---MegaTrav---
Volume  Weight Price Weight Price
(L)     (kg)   (Cr)  (kg)   (Cr)
500     50.0   3000  50     1200
750     75.0   3500  75     1400
1000   100.0   4000  100    1600
[/FONT]

That is to say, same weight but Book 8 lists the chassis at 2.5 times the price for robots. So I divided all the prices in Book 8 (after the initial dividing by 10 for the smaller hull sizes), which gave me this.

[FONT="Courier New"]Volume  Weight Price
(L)     (kg)   (Cr)
5        0.5   60
10       1.0   100
20       2.0   160
50       5.0   300
80       8.0   380
100     10.0   400
150     15.0   600
200     20.0   800
350     35.0   1000
500     50.0   1200
750     75.0   1400
1000   100.0   1600
2000   200.0   2000
3000   300.0   2400[/FONT]

I then added in a few hull weights / prices, using the MegaTraveller extrapolation rule. I agree Tom, this rule results in some anomalies - depending on which hull size one rounds to, a slightly smaller hull could be more expensive than a larger one!

But I decided not to change this situation. I did extensive charts with plots of a cost-per-litre curve and tried to get a curve of best fit based around a hyperbole to derive a formula for any given size. Then late one night staring at the screen I realised - this is going to make less than Cr100 difference to nearly all the robot designs in my spreadsheet. Why am I bothering? Getting rid of the anomalies is not worth the effort, and after all, there are just some quirks in MegaTraveller. It's not going to interfere in game play.

Having said all of that, I'd be interested to see anything you come up with that improves the hull size cost calculations as it was a puzzle that had me going for a while.

 

[shield]

smaller hulls costing more is not too unreasonable, it gets more difficult to build stuff if it gets too small and this makes up for the reduced material costs

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning OjnoTheRed and shield,

Hopefully I can express what my issue is with the MT: Robots Pricing for 2000 and 3000 l hulls and the pricing for hulls in the MT: RM Vehicle table. MT: Robots data points are identified with an asterisk. CT: Book 8 data points are identified with a dollar sign.

Volume (L)  Weight (kg)  Price (Cr)
250            25            850
250*           25*           850*
500            50           1200
500$           50$          3000$
500*           50*          1200*
750            75           1400
750$           75$          3500$
750*           75*          1400*
1000          100           1600
1000$         100$          4000$
1000*         100*          1600*
1500          150           2000
1750          175           2200
2000*         200*          2000*
2500          250           2400
3000*         300*          2400*
3370          400           2600

Looking at the above table, except for CT, 2000 l, and 3000 l pricing the tables match. Even with the anomalies the fact I can get a 2000 l hull at the same price as a 1500 l doesn't make sense to me. A 1750 l hull is 250 l larger than a 1500 l with an increase cost of Cr200. Going from 1750 l to 2500 l an increase in cost is shown again.

If the 2000 l and 3000 l hulls had prices between the ones listed for hulls in the MT: RM vehicle table I wouldn't be so puzzled and tormenting the members of the forum.

My apologies for beating a subject to death.