Editing Talk:Jump Point

==Remove cleanup template?==
Article reads clearly, no obvious errors. Remove cleanup? [[Special:Contributions/71.199.233.118|71.199.233.118]] 06:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:While at a glance it could probably stand to have more superfluous links and {{tl|citation needed}} templates, I'd say it's fine as is. Remember to be bold, young padawan. On second look there's one or two things not in-line with the Manual of Style, but it's hardly enough to warrant a {{tl|cleanup}} template. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 06:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
::{{emoticon|:)}} --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 07:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:::While you're here… any idea why the Manual of Style insists upon "American this", "American that", yet advocates logical quotation over the American favoured "we'll mangle quotations by adding punctuation that may or may not alter the meaning"? --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 07:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Frivolously snarky answer: because the American English spelling helps prevent edit wars over what is proper, by settling up front using the source material as the basis, but acknowledging that American grammar can often be wrong when it comes to handling context? Oh, BTW ,you mis-spelled 'favor.' {{emoticon|;)}} --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::Whether ending punctuation is on the inside or outside of the quotation marks is a stylistic choice. Also, I writez good. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
[[File:Lojban.png|center]]
::::::From [http://xkcd.com/191/ XKCD.com]. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

== Anon's Editing Notes ==

Like my description note said, the words "transient" and "Lagrange" don't show up in rulebooks (at least) before ''BattleForce 2'', p. 71 (and carried forward to ''AeroTech 2'', p. 72).  Contrast with ''DropShips & JumpShips - Operations Manual'', p. 30 and ''BattleSpace - Rulebook'', p. 44.  Text and the long-lived diagram of a sphere indicate that transient points weren't considered yet.  I even checked ''MechWarrior, 2nd ed.''

Looking at the outer "life zone" distances in ''Campaign Operations'', the rule of thumb for finding the distance saved when using a non-transient pirate point is to subtract 1 from the star's subtype before entering the "Proximity Point Table."  Doing that for a few selected star types in travel times results in the time savings I cited of around 5% to 10%.  A proper spreadsheet analysis of all possible time savings is left as an exercise for the reader.

Compared to ''AeroTech 2'', p. 57, ''Strategic Operations: Advanced Aerospace Rules'', p. 76 seems to have lost the note in the "Hyperspace Navigation Table" indicating that the +4 modifier for using a transient point is ''cumulative'' with the +4 modifier for using a non-standard point (a "double pirate point" penalty, if you will).  I suspect this is both caused by and contributes to the confusion around the definition of "pirate point."

Personal speculation:  "transient points" got added because authors did the math and realized "pirate points" as written in the old rulebooks didn't lead to the kinds of time savings seen in lore & fiction.  

Personal prediction:  someone writing something important will confuse a Lagrange point with a barycenter.
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==Remove cleanup template?==
+Article reads clearly, no obvious errors. Remove cleanup? [[Special:Contributions/71.199.233.118|71.199.233.118]] 06:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+:While at a glance it could probably stand to have more superfluous links and {{tl|citation needed}} templates, I'd say it's fine as is. Remember to be bold, young padawan. On second look there's one or two things not in-line with the Manual of Style, but it's hardly enough to warrant a {{tl|cleanup}} template. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 06:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+::{{emoticon|:)}} --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 07:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::While you're here… any idea why the Manual of Style insists upon "American this", "American that", yet advocates logical quotation over the American favoured "we'll mangle quotations by adding punctuation that may or may not alter the meaning"? --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 07:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::Frivolously snarky answer: because the American English spelling helps prevent edit wars over what is proper, by settling up front using the source material as the basis, but acknowledging that American grammar can often be wrong when it comes to handling context? Oh, BTW ,you mis-spelled 'favor.' {{emoticon|;)}} --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Whether ending punctuation is on the inside or outside of the quotation marks is a stylistic choice. Also, I writez good. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 15:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
+[[File:Lojban.png|center]]
+::::::From [http://xkcd.com/191/ XKCD.com]. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 == Anon's Editing Notes ==
@@ Line 9: / Line 19: @@
 Personal speculation:  "transient points" got added because authors did the math and realized "pirate points" as written in the old rulebooks didn't lead to the kinds of time savings seen in lore & fiction.
-Personal prediction:  someone writing something important will confuse a Lagrange point with a barycenter.{{Unsigned|192.145.116.143}}
+Personal prediction:  someone writing something important will confuse a Lagrange point with a barycenter.
-: The main issue I am seeing right now is what are the terms used "in universe" because as far as Sarna is concerned, lore is literally everything no matter what the rules say. And reading this, I am thinking that all your work is 100% rules based.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:26, 23 October 2023 (EDT)
-:: And checking, I have removed the table. It is pretty much a direct copy the one in the rule book so can be deemed a copyright violation.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 06:32, 23 October 2023 (EDT)
-::: I'm anxious about going beyond rulebooks and space-focused sourcebooks on this for a couple of reasons.
-::: The big one is that hyperspace is magic, and a lot of this boils down to "Kell Hounds did it back in '29," just like the [[Phantom 'Mech]].  Hyperspace navigation isn't supposed to be something the average person in the 31st century understands, including MechWarriors.  With few (any?) main characters in the novels doing hyperspace navigation for a living, I don't think their words or opinions should be relied on too heavily for this.
-::: And the reason to discount anybody's opinion (ground-pounder or otherwise) is that much of what's written about hyperspace navigation is ''contradicting''.  A "pirate point" in ''DropShips and JumpShips'' and core ''BattleSpace'' is specifically ''not'' a "pirate point" in ''Interstellar Operations''.  ''Strategic Operations'' says that only L1 points have jump points, but ''Dawn of the Jihad'' describes Case White materializing at an L2, with both statements made by in-universe characters that should know what they're talking about.
-::: It's understandable that a MechWarrior would internalize "'pirate point' means shorter transit times" and leave it at that.
-::: In my opinion, the best that can be done here is:
-:::* Describe hyperspace travel in vague terms of what players can do without going too deep into how/why, because how/why often has multiple, contradicting answers (even among current publications) or was deliberately left to role-playing gamemaster discretion.
-:::* Rely more on game systems where hyperspace jumps are a normal part of gameplay rather than "special case" or "campaign" rules, because the different rulesets often produce contradicting results (even among current publications), and systems where jumps are normal probably best describe what a jump normally looks like.
-::: I'm already planning second pass at this (preferably ''before'' bedtime this time), and the first thing I'm planning to do is dump an annotated bibliography here in the Talk page of the books I'll be using, noting trends and changes over time to try to find coherence.  [[User:Ziyyigo-Tipyigo|Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]] ([[User talk:Ziyyigo-Tipyigo|talk]]) 01:29, 1 November 2023 (EDT)