World generation - corrections, errata, and other help

[dalthor]

While checking over various iterations of my Varan sector, I noted a LOT of disparities; I'm sure most are due to hand-edits, and I figure I will once again tweak everything to match my expectations based on history as I know it, but some adherence to T5 norms might be nice.

I'm wanting to go thru my Varan sector data, and would like to be in the ballpark at the very least.

I know there are (discussions and) issues with worldgen, such as Starport vs population, and am sure there are other specific items out there.

As a specific example, I've seen numerous references about some atmosphere types being "invalid" for certain world sizes, especially in the T5SS discussion(s).

I can't seem to find any specifics. Can somebody point me in the right direction, so I can see what the hubbub is about, and see what changes it would entail??

Thanks!

 

[aramis]

While checking over various iterations of my Varan sector, I noted a LOT of disparities; I'm sure most are due to hand-edits, and I figure I will once again tweak everything to match my expectations based on history as I know it, but some adherence to T5 norms might be nice.

I'm wanting to go thru my Varan sector data, and would like to be in the ballpark at the very least.

I know there are (discussions and) issues with worldgen, such as Starport vs population, and am sure there are other specific items out there.

As a specific example, I've seen numerous references about some atmosphere types being "invalid" for certain world sizes, especially in the T5SS discussion(s).

I can't seem to find any specifics. Can somebody point me in the right direction, so I can see what the hubbub is about, and see what changes it would entail??

Thanks!

The hubbub is that Atm can only be Size±5. Same for Hyd. Not all published worlds from CT obeyed the restrictions. Likewise, Govt=Pop±5, and LL=Govt±5, but not always in publsihed data.

In MGT, with certain options in use, has additional restrictions:
S=S-2: A=0
S=3-4: A= 0,1 or A

Hydrographics also gets some mods

See MGT page 180

The T5 data is being tweaked to eliminate most of the "too small to hold atmosphere" worlds. T5 itself doesn't, however.

 

[EDG]

The hubbub is that Atm can only be Size±5.

Atm can be A for worlds in the outer zone regardless of size (on a roll of 12 on 2D). That's been there since CT Book 6. Whether any published UWPs represent worlds in the outer zone is another matter, but it's pretty certain that some of them must be.

The T5 data is being tweaked to eliminate most of the "too small to hold atmosphere" worlds. T5 itself doesn't, however.

To answer the OP's question - worlds of size 4 or less can't have breathable atmospheres - however, many that were too small to retain such atmospheres were generated in published sectors, so they're (finally) being corrected.

Why this fix is being applied to T5SS worlds but isn't part of T5's standard worldgen is beyond me though.

 

[dalthor]

The hubbub is that Atm can only be Size±5. Same for Hyd. Not all published worlds from CT obeyed the restrictions. Likewise, Govt=Pop±5, and LL=Govt±5, but not always in publsihed data.
...
The T5 data is being tweaked to eliminate most of the "too small to hold atmosphere" worlds. T5 itself doesn't, however.

Errrrmmmm..not quite following this...what is the ± symbol? Does that mean "plus or minus"?

If that is the case, Atm = Size±5 would equate to Atm = Size + flux, correct?

(( I understand that if Siz=0 then Atm = 0, and negative values become zero. ))

Also, will the T5 errata eventually address these ?

FWIW, I have a lot of mental moments, so if you need a good laugh my posts may help. Dang brain injuries certainly do cause problems...lol. (Before you ask, the issue is related to my military service; I used to be smarter than the average dummy)

 

[EDG]

Errrrmmmm..not quite following this...what is the ± symbol? Does that mean "plus or minus"?

Yes. Traditionally, most UWP rolls were (stat)+(2d6-7). 2d6-7 gives you a range between -5 and +5. Flux gives you the same range in practical terms, just rolled differently.

If that is the case, Atm = Size±5 would equate to Atm = Size + flux, correct?

Yep. Atm was Size+(2d-7), which in T5 has become Size + Flux.

 

[DonM]

Right now, for legacy data, the fix is to up the size to match the atmosphere, so trade codes don't change.

For new rolls, however, I don't have a final decision from Marc. He's still reviewing the options, while approving the fix for legacy data.

Why this fix is being applied to T5SS worlds but isn't part of T5's standard worldgen is beyond me though.

Actually, that decision was made by Marc Miller. I don't think he was aware that it required your approval.

 

[EDG]

Actually, that decision was made by Marc Miller. I don't think he was aware that it required your approval.

It doesn't. I don't care who made the decision, it should still be questioned. What's the point of fixing the problem in one place and not another?

If the T5 worldgen can still make tiny cannonball worlds with breathable atmospheres when you KNOW how to fix them, then you're only screwing everyone else who'd use it to make their own settings. It wouldn't be remotely difficult to fix this in the worldgen either (and make up your mind - either he's "reviewing the options" or "the decision has been made" by him).

 

[DonM]

I don't see the problem with the answer being both...

For legacy data, the fix is clear. For fixing the T5 rules permanently, he has several options and hasn't made up his mind. The legacy data fix isn't T5 errata, so it doesn't go in that document.

And I don't think there's a conspiracy to screw with anyone making their own settings if we're public about the issue. But if you're suggesting that Marc is deliberately sabotaging people's T5 settings with how he's handling the question, I think that's a truly odd concept.

So if I get your suggestion correctly, we should ignore an identified legacy problem until Marc decides how to adjust the T5 rule, even though we know how we're going to handle the legacy data already? I'd question that decision.

 

[aramis]

[m;]Thread being closed pending admin team review.[/m;]

 

[aramis]

[m;]Thread Reopened, 1 post deleted for personal attacks. [/m;]

 

[Ishmael]

it is a confusion

it all seems very inconsistent to me.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=14987

The original problems were so awful that TPTB reversed their edict of "no changes"?

 

[rancke]

As a specific example, I've seen numerous references about some atmosphere types being "invalid" for certain world sizes, especially in the T5SS discussion(s).

A planet needs a certain amount of gravity to retain a given atmosphere over astronomical times. A size 3 world with a thin atmosphere, for example, would need some highly unusual condition to explain it. Nothing wrong with a few singular explanations, such as a very dense core with a mantle of more normal density on top, or the ancients having given it an atmosphere that hadn't had time to dissipate completely, or a more recent terraforming project being responsible, or... well, that's about all I can think of. The problem is that in some people's opinion (including mine) using such explanations for every such world the world generation system throws up damages the verisimilitude of the setting. A small handful of dense core worlds and terraforming projects are fun; scores and scores of them are belief-suspender bursting.


Hans

 

[dalthor]

Right now, for legacy data, the fix is to up the size to match the atmosphere, so trade codes don't change.

Many thanks, that succinctly sums up the fix, and I appreciate it!

Just to be certain, this applies to worlds size 4 and less, and in that case atmosphere should be less than or equal to size -- correct?

To stray a bit, but on a related issue, and hoping not to open another can - are there any other UWP changes that I might want to use for my data corrections?

Note that I'm NOT worried about starports. IMTU the port is "sector/global" ownership, and NOT related to the planet other than location and a possible downport. This gives the ability to segregate the two should it become necessary - the word "embargo" comes to mind, at least to some extent.

Thanks!

 

[DonM]

Ok, pulling my notes out...

All worlds:
If SIZ <3 and ATM 1 or A-C, then SIZ=3
If SIZ <4 and ATM 2 or 3, then SIZ=4
If SIZ <5 and ATM 4-9, then SIZ=5

If non-native population:
If TL <5 and ATM 4, 7 or 9, then TL=5
If TL <6 and ATM 3, then TL=6
If TL <7 and ATM 0-2, then TL=7
If TL <8 and ATM A or B, then TL=8
If TL <9 and ATM C, then TL=9

If that last group appears familiar, it's from the CT Alien Modules...

 

[rancke]

Ok, pulling my notes out...

All worlds:
If SIZ <3 and ATM 1 or A-C, then SIZ=3
If SIZ <4 and ATM 2 or 3, then SIZ=4
If SIZ <5 and ATM 4-9, then SIZ=5

You don't leave a few oddball worlds? None at all?


Hans

 

[DonM]

it all seems very inconsistent to me.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=14987

The original problems were so awful that TPTB reversed their edict of "no changes"?

Well, in 2008, I was just the Timeline guy. This is 2014, and TPTB do change their mind...

From my side of things...

Once I got deeply involved in T5, Marc had this spreadsheet of all the Imperial worlds UWP data he was working with. The foundation of the T5SS...

I was looking at the Marches data, and asked about some of the things that I questioned, and my position, which is that while saying "a good referee can explain any UWP" might be fine, it's awful for a newbie referee. This goes back to my personal experience having kids of astronomy and physics professors in my games.

Once I had him thinking about that, there were some worlds that just begged for some adjustment. I asked Hans for his Sword World suggestions, asked Mike West for ideas for the Darrians, and all of that would result in the Marches drafts on the old T5 hidden board. And yes, when UWPs don't match adventures, it's the adventure or description that wins out.

When Marc asked for data for the whole Imperium for the T5 Kickstarter effort, that really kicked off the T5SS, and I proposed that if we could post it to travellermap.com, it would allow us to gather public input on the effort.

Once we'd actually converted the whole Imperium, I went to Marc with a new question: does this data actually reflect YOUR vision for the OTU? That started a new discussion, and the current data has modifications (aka, the Solomani Rim no longer economically blows out any three other Imperial sectors) to match his vision. And as we add new sectors to the T5SS, we continue to make sure everything matches Marc's vision.

So it's possible that this may not be consistent with 2008; however, from 2009 onward, it's been very consistent. The "charter" for the T5SS is to provide OTU licensees with ONE single consistent source for UWPs, incorporate any data changes made by authors or licensees, and then make that data available to all licensees.

 

[DonM]

You don't leave a few oddball worlds? None at all?
Hans

Occasionally, but those are the general rules. Oddballs have to be defended, and "just because I want an oddball world" isn't a valid defense. There are a few in some locations though, because there were some reasons for keeping them.

This is why, except for the recent request by Marc for a set of Aslan sectors, we've generally done this one sector at a time and slowly. We could have just gathered all the Sunbane sectors, poured them all in at once and posted that data. I'd consider that data to have no personality...

And I still consider the new Aslan sectors very draft.

 

[Ishmael]

Well, in 2008, I was just the Timeline guy. This is 2014, and TPTB do change their mind...

From my side of things...

Once I got deeply involved in T5, Marc had this spreadsheet of all the Imperial worlds UWP data he was working with. The foundation of the T5SS...

I just think it funny in an odd way about how anti TPTB and the community were then as opposed to how agreeable they are now. All over what appear to be very similar changes and rationals for such changes.

There was another thread that has since been locked where it was argued as to why the setting is being changed and the rules will not necessarily reflect the setting. Why does T5 not follow Mr.Miller's vision for the OTU? It seems that it should, given that T5 is Mr.Miller's vision for the ultimate rule-set to play in the setting he envisions....

It also would seem to cause Mongoose Publishing's version of the Spinward Marches to be yet another deviation from canon and decidedly non-OTU as a result.

It all just seems needless and odd to me.

 

[DonM]

Remember that all licensees are getting their OTU data from one source (the T5SS data), and contributing back to that source any changes.

All data appearing in Mongoose products has been straight from the T5SS since before Reft Sector, and Mongoose products produced before that came from T5SS's precursors.

So anyone who says Mongoose Traveller isn't OTU... is wrong. Same with the Lorenverse (GURPS Traveller) and items before 1115 (with some TINY alterations).

T5 does follow Marc's vision. The issue is that while Marc has approved a fix for legacy data (increasing the size of worlds based on their atmosphere), he has NOT made a final decision about how to apply that change to T5's WorldGen rules, because there are several ways to accomplish it, and he hasn't made up his mind as to his preference between them.

To some, this means no movement forward is possible, all data collection and cleanup for the OTU should stop, and NO ONE should take an action until Marc makes a decision about the rules. However, I received approval from him about how to handle legacy data, so the T5SS project could continue forward, providing data to licensees, and that overall cleanup effort could continue.

But there's worse. Remember that I've already publicly admitted that both the Spinward Marches and Solomani Rim data were originally tweaked by human hands, rather than completely generated from scratch. Now has come the revelation that after the first pass of Imperial world data, we discovered that the economy didn't match Marc's overall vision of the Imperium. So after reviewing what changes were made to the Solomani Rim data, we applied those lessons to other Imperial sectors... Antares, Core, Massilia and Ilelish were all somewhat affected. Those changes were then reviewed and approved by Marc. Those changes were not generated; we discovered the alterations done to the Rim, and used those to guide us. The new overall economic result to the Imperium has Marc's blessing.

Realize that previously there was no single data source for the OTU; authors and licensees found what data they liked, or created their own, and just used that. Now, all contributors to the OTU have their data reviewed, and we also provide guidance to those authors to make sure their work fits with Marc's vision for his universe.

I don't see how that would be needless or odd to anyone. I think it's a requirement for Marc Miller to make sure the OTU remains his universe. Also remember that we're doing this in public, and we're open to discussion on the elements of the T5SS. What isn't open for discussion is the process -- it's already been done, and will continue, and is directly connected to T5's ongoing development.

 

[Garnfellow]

Don, can you explain what was so anomalous in the Solomani Rim data, and how the fix was applied? Was it overall population totals? Number and/or distribution of high pop worlds? Were UWP codes and/or pop multipliers tweaked?