| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm going to take some time to look over the table, but I do agree with Bren on a standard formatting if you're going to use decimals. It will make the left side much easier to read in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | Here is the "core"of the table table, without the siebars.
URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/tradetabletrimmed.png/] [/URL]
How my response got bumped up ahread of the questions, I can't explain.  |
BTW, I spotted an error on the table. I messed up the price for medicine. It should be 4200 cr/ton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought I followed the explanation, but then I read the example. | atgxtg wrote: | | For example, if you are buying Hig Tech (base price 60000 credits/ton) on a Space Age planet (Supply code H) you would cross index the 6000 crdits with the H supply for a price of 5700 credits/ton. |
According to the table, the cross index of Supply Code H with the Base Price 6,000 row is 5,400 credits. Not 5,700 credits. What am I missing?
| Quote: | | Bren wrote: | | Is the only signifcance of the shading the fact that it is a GG6 item and price? |
No. The rows in orange are for things in GG6 that I adjusted to try and get the 2% numbers to round off better. The orange prices are the prices according to RAW. The differences are minor, but Ikept both prices so people could use he ones they want. |
I can't get this to work out. Is the orange the RAW or your adjusted price?
| Quote: | | Bren wrote: |
The left side would be easier to read if all the prices had a single decimal place i.e. 3.6, 3.8, 4.0, 4.2 rather than 3.6, 3.8, 4, 4.2. |
Indeed. Unfortunate, the prices given in GG6 don't break down that way. I was tinkering with the values a bit to try and get them to line up better for the 2% values. |
I don;t follow you. Just add in a decimal and a zero to all the numbers on the left without a decimal. Then align them to their right or use a decimal tab or alignment and they should display properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | I thought I followed the explanation, but then I read the example. | atgxtg wrote: | | For example, if you are buying Hig Tech (base price 60000 credits/ton) on a Space Age planet (Supply code H) you would cross index the 6000 crdits with the H supply for a price of 5700 credits/ton. |
According to the table, the cross index of Supply Code H with the Base Price 6,000 row is 5,400 credits. Not 5,700 credits. What am I missing? |
The fact that I messedup the table! Sorry, 5700 credits is correct. I supect I cut and pasted something wrong in the spreadshseet. I will correct this.
| Quote: | | I can't get this to work out. Is the orange the RAW or your adjusted price? |
Orange should be RAW, but I messed up the table!
| Quote: | | I don;t follow you. Just add in a decimal and a zero to all the numbers on the left without a decimal. Then align them to their right or use a decimal tab or alignment and they should display properly. |
Oh, you mean you want the numbers centered better rather than having a problem with the Half credit values? Sorry. I though you didn7t like the .5 credits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This should make more sense No wonder had everyone confused. 
[
 [/URL] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey it's not like we've never had a copy paste or formula error.
Less confused now. thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azai
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 248
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
VH= Very High, H= High, M= Medium, L=Low, VL=Very Low?
I just want to make sure, if this is correct.
Essentially on the right is depending on the supply of the good, this would be the baseline price? Of if you were a shipping paying it? Not if you were a trader selling it at retail or in bulk to whoever? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Azai wrote: | VH= Very High, H= High, M= Medium, L=Low, VL=Very Low?
I just want to make sure, if this is correct. |
Yup. Just like in G6. In fact there is very little here that isn't the same as GG6. I just reorganized it so that it should be easier to handlle the trading.
| Quote: |
Essentially on the right is depending on the supply of the good, this would be the baseline price? Of if you were a shipping paying it? Not if you were a trader selling it at retail or in bulk to whoever? |
The Medium column (in bold) is the baseline price. This would be what you use if you were buying the goods at a place where there was a Moderate Supply, or selling them on such a world.
The prices given assume that the freighter captain is buying items in bulk, t wholesale rates, not full price. For example, a ton of "medicine" might contain 100 doses or medicne or 100 medipacs, packed in shipping creates, and worth far more (100 creadits each vs. 42) in stores. That is also the way GG6 does it, and I didn't change it.
Now in the real world, the markup for good varies from product to product, and differernt products require more packing material, or can't be shipped in certain ways. Food and mdicnes could be perishable, and require refrigeration (or carbon freezing), gold can't be stacked more than about .86 meters high, etc. So the prices per ton could vary considerably.
I7ve got a document that I7m working on that gives guidelines for stuff like that, but for the most part, I assume that the "shipper's price" is about 1.5th retail, and that you only get about a half ton of goods in a ton of cargo. The rest being packing material and shipping crates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | ...gold can't be stacked more than about .86 meters high... |
Really? Why is that?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the table with generic trade profiles for planets based on thier TECH EVEL. It should match up with the values from GG6. I would have posted this yesterday, but for some strange reason I felt that I needed to check it over one more time. And a good thing I did. Wednesday was not my day for writing tables!
If something doesn't work out for anyone please let me know.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | ...gold can't be stacked more than about .86 meters high... |
Really? Why is that? |
I hadn't heard that before, but I would guess the weight would cause the bottom layer of gold to deform maybe even "nature weld" (being such a soft and dense metal).
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | ...gold can't be stacked more than about .86 meters high... |
Really? Why is that? |
I hadn't heard that before, but I would guess the weight would cause the bottom layer of gold to deform maybe even "nature weld" (being such a soft and dense metal). |
Give the man a cigar! Gold is so dense, yet so soft that past that height it cn't support it's weight and will deform and spread out over the floor. There are a couple of ways to deal with this. First is to place it on shelves of less than the maximum height. Good, but since gold is heavy, such shevels would need to be pretty strong to withstand over 1600 kg/cm2. In Star Wars, I suppuse they counld run an anti-gravity field in the cargo hold and reduce it's effective mass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Give the man a cigar! Gold is so dense, yet so soft that past that height it cn't support it's weight and will deform and spread out over the floor. |
Well there goes those giant mounds of dragon gold. 
| atgxtg wrote: | | ...I suppuse they counld run an anti-gravity field in the cargo hold and reduce it's effective mass. |
Mass isn't the problem, weight is and I wouldn't think antigravity reduces mass, but only reduces the effective gravity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16391
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Mass isn't the problem, weight is and I wouldn't think antigravity reduces mass, but only reduces the effective gravity. |
True, but anti-gravity would reduce the mass acceleration in the direction of gravity, which means the stuff stacked "on top" wouldn't be pressing down on the stuff underneath.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | True, but anti-gravity would reduce the mass acceleration in the direction of gravity, which means the stuff stacked "on top" wouldn't be pressing down on the stuff underneath. |
And mass x g is the weight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
