The Second Survey

[Avery]

There exists in various forms the survey details of the Imperium, nearly all of them transformations of the world UWP details which I originally created on an Apple II many many years ago. This data was the basis of Atlas of the Imperium, of the (flawed) Milieu 0, and of the Heaven & Earth data. This is the place to discuss additions, corrections, deletions, and modifications of that data.

Ultimately, we want to do a "Second Survey" with authoritative data... including notes and comments (like homeworld of the Geonee; site of the battle of the Two Suns, etc).

 

[AndreaV]

There exists in various forms the survey details of the Imperium, nearly all of them transformations of the world UWP details which I originally created on an Apple II many many years ago. This data was the basis of Atlas of the Imperium, of the (flawed) Milieu 0, and of the Heaven & Earth data. This is the place to discuss additions, corrections, deletions, and modifications of that data.

Can you comment on the validity of the GEnie/Sunbane data? At least some of this seems highly suspect.

 

[Avery]

Some of the original data for Atlas of the Imperium was corrupted (I believe when posted) and that has perpetuated itself. That however, was only a few worlds across 35 sectors. I agree some data is highly suspect, and that's one of the aims I have here... feed back on data out there in order create a "corrected" and correct data file.

 

[MJD]

The backdating used in First Survey/Mileu 0 is badly flawed and causes a number of problems if used as it stands. I'd like to see a fixed version with maybe stats for Year 0, Year 600 and Year 1000 or whatever.

 

[AndreaV]

Some of the original data for Atlas of the Imperium was corrupted (I believe when posted) and that has perpetuated itself. That however, was only a few worlds across 35 sectors. I agree some data is highly suspect, and that's one of the aims I have here... feed back on data out there in order create a "corrected" and correct data file.

I think the way to go would be to do it on a sector by sector basis (analyise and fix one sector before moving on to the next). Pick a date (lets say 1112, the end of the 5th FFW) and fix the raw data as at that time. Then regress the data to other times.

One of my main worries about the data, is that it doesn't seem to be strictly random. There seems to be long stretches of worlds with very similar characteristics (the "rockball" nature of Delphi is an example), and thats something that can only be solved by looking at a sector as a whole.

Would it be possible to completely regenerate the data, keeping only what has been published in the Atlas and other canon (I know its physically possible, I guess I'm asking if it is a viable option).

I also wonder about the worlds that were published in JTAS Amber Zones and never placed. I encountered this problem when writting up the Otrai for GT Humaniti. This world (Otrai) is never placed and no world in the published sectors fits, so I just picked a suitable location and recreated the world to fit (keeping the Atlas data intact)

 

[Avery]

Pick a date (lets say 1112, the end of the 5th FFW) and fix the raw data as at that time.

I believe the date to pick is 1065; the date of the publication of Second Survey.

 

[~dude]

I believe the date to pick is 1065; the date of the publication of Second Survey.

Okay-- lets do this. The question is, what rules set do we use to generate the data?

 

[AndreaV]

I believe the date to pick is 1065; the date of the publication of Second Survey.

As good a date as any. Right so where to start? Is the old data to be kept in toto? Just the subset published in the Atlas and other sources?

May I humbly suggest breaking the task down. Get volunteers to do a preliminary analysis of an individual sector (I'll volunteer for Ley). Then submit it for peer review (ie here), and then send the finished sector (with a list of all changes and the rational behind them) to Marc for final approval (no matter how this is done there has to be a single person who ways yah or nay, and Marc is the only real choice).

 

[T. Foster]

Per Traveller Canon there were 2 Grand Surveys, the first in 420 and the second in 1065. Rather than compiling new data for each era setting, I suggest that these two dates be published as 'official,' (in a single volume, if feasible) together with suggested methods (and perhaps an automatable system) for 'improving' or 'backdating' the data to match other eras.

This method has the advantage of providing a solid baseline without straightjacketing the individual referee with immovable sets of numbers; there will still be plenty of 'wiggle room' to customize individual worlds and subsectors to taste.

 

[Vargas]

I have corrected UWPs for all of Zarushagar that I coordinated with Dave Nilsen...now if I can just find the right disk....

 

[DonM]

I've got the integrated timeline for Traveller (all versions, although I'm still entering the GURPS stuff, and I don't have all the TNE stuff because I didn't buy it

... I'd love to help the survey by pulling all the references for specific sectors so that historical mentions can be matched against the generated world codes...


DonM.

 

[Paul Drye]

Two questions:

What material gets used in as "historical references"? I'm asking because, in digging around in my storage room, I came across two early-80s "White Dwarf" magazines with adventures by Phil Masters (he of Jgd-Il-Jagd and Githiaskio fame). Both were quite good, and both were set on named and located worlds that no longer exist according to the Sunbane data. In the past, this stuff was impossible to cross-reference, but have you given any thought to the power the Internet gives you to track down and get a precis of the obscure stuff? I'm willing to bet that you could find virtually everything in the possession of one person or another who'd be willing to help.

Second question: Can something be done about the world names in the Sunbane data? Some of them are pretty good, even evocative (check out Empty Quarter some time), but some are *terrible*. Antares sector has always been a favorite of mine, but the Sunbane names are ridiculous. There's a world in the League of Antares called "Whohaha" frex....

Cheers,
Paul Drye

 

[BitKnot]

Ultimately, we want to do a "Second Survey" with authoritative data...

Is this survey to 'coincide' with T5 or standalone?

 

[laning]

Where does the TML Landgrab fit into this? I would really like to see the work and creativity that many of the Landgrab people have poured into their systems harnessed and used. OTOH, a lot of Landgrabers have taken quite a bit of poetic license and departed from strictly canonical views of the universe.

I'm sure most Landgrabers would be extremely pleased to see their work become an official part of Traveller in a future Atlas or Second Survey.

-Laning

 

[Murph]

What about the Digest Group Publication data in their Aliens series?

 

[Clay Bush]

HIWG attempted to develop the DGP files. 20% of the people ended up doing 80% of the work. Many people asked for a land grant, got it, and then disappeared.

If you want to develop a Second Survey, as opposed to just roll it up, then you will have problems with consistency. Someone will name 20 worlds in the "G'Harn" language, which adds flavor. Now, how does the "G'Harni" langauage table get out to users? If marc dislikes the idea of a race of telepathic lizard warrior-monks, and said developers leaves, what happens to the "G'Harni"?

I crunched some numners and arrived at 1 minor race per sector, 2-3 starfaring minor races per sector, and a canon statement about 12 important minor human races. We spent some time trying to agree if that was an acceptable guideline. Some named an important minor human race, worked out a language table, and placed named worlds. Others named sectors still with strictly Vilani or Solomani names.

Unless development is controlled, you will not have consistency. Good or bad.

 

[aramis]

I'm sure most Landgrabers would be extremely pleased to see their work become an official part of Traveller in a future Atlas or Second Survey.

I know I would!

Wypoc and it's dragons.... I've had people across the country go "That was YOUR campaign?!" upon the subject of Traveller coming up. (I doubt I'm the only one, but hey! I grabbed it. See what I've done at http://home.gci.net/~aramis/mt/wypoc.html
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[GypsyComet]

HIWG attempted to develop the DGP files. 20% of the people ended up doing 80% of the work. Many people asked for a land grant, got it, and then disappeared.

Gee, Clay, you sound surprised.

<much venom deleted>

Ahem.

If you are interested in the Zhodani material for Tienspevnekr, Marc, I can certainly finish the work that Real Life interrupted nearly seven years ago. I'll understand if it's outside the area you're thinking of covering. I'd offer for Ziafrplians, but I think someone else has picked up that torch...

Jim Kundert
HIWG #200 (retired)
Zhodani Sector Analyst - Tienspevnekr & Ziafrplians.

 

[Mår Ekkertsen]

Gee, Clay, you sound surprised. <much venom deleted>....

My experience, admittedly not proven to be relevant here, is that a group developed activity needs to have key goals defined, the interfaces between the group members well defined, and a task master willing to seek often for status, who also carries the authority to demand delivery of current work and find a new owner to complete that work.
------------------
mark ayers, philosopher serf, editor of n2s; the journal for an empty mind
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~n2s/>

 

[GypsyComet]

My experience, admittedly not proven to be relevant here, is that a group developed activity needs to have key goals defined, the interfaces between the group members well defined, and a task master willing to seek often for status, who also carries the authority to demand delivery of current work and find a new owner to complete that work.

All factors that caused the failure of HIWG, either by being present or absent. Having Quadrant Coordinators with their own agendas didn't help...

HIWG was spread around the world, and communicated (except for a small core) via surface mail. It was also a hobby group that sadly took on a couple lonely aspects of organized task-completion but didn't have the tools to make them work, depending instead on the "dedication to Traveller" to get those projects done.

The U.K. and Australian branches got the most impressive work done, simply because they took the steps locally to be more organized and focused. The rest of us (me included for a while) forgot the original mission and sank into canon quibbles and border skirmishes. As a result only the small handful ever appeared in print (the original mission of HIWG, BTW). My few appearance in print were all due to connections I had through HIWG, but were rarely (one instance, and that in a HIWG publication) part of the projects I undertook for HIWG.

That said, if Marc wants to do the Second Survey and have some large group of Traveller fans help, I'm all for it. It may vindicate (finally) a lot of the work that went on under the HIWG aegis, giving some mighty hard workers their day at last (I don't count myself here; I've seen pieces of what the Gushemege gang did...). Most importantly, it would be work toward the direct goal of publication, with the added advantage of having been commissioned by the publisher.