Master List of Scales in HERO

[Gadodel]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

I want to stop reading this thread but I just can't' date=' lol.[/quote']

Ditto.

 

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Ah, but do you remember the "A + B = B + A" thing?

 

You agreed that those were the same, and with a bit of math work, I can show you how the "+ 10" in the above statement is mathematically equal to a "X 4"

I agreed that *what* was the same? Yes, I agree that "A + B = B + A," and I agree that "+10 STR, in the HERO System, means four times lifting capacity." But I don't agree that those two statements are analogous. As I said before: one is the commutative law of addition, and the other is a formula based on the rules of a game.

 

Thus, unless you can find fault in my math, you can see how that the "+10" in the above formula is mathematically identical to a "X4"

You really don't need to explain how +10 STR leads to four times the lifting capacity. I already agree to that. I understand how the rules of HERO work. You do not need to show me the math on this.

 

However, one statement *leading* to another, is not the same as those two statements being *equivalent*. And even if they were, it still wouldn't show anything about OCV or CSLs being non-linear.

 

Could we agree that this change in OCV would amount to a "relative difference" from the perspective on characters in the game world?

That would depend on how the characters quantify the difference in their game world perceptions. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand the meanings of the words "relative" and "absolute." An expressed difference only becomes relative or absolute based on how it is expressed.

 

If two buildings are of different heights, is that a relative difference or an absolute difference? Answer: neither. In order for it to become one or the other, the difference needs to be quantified in some way. If you say building A is twenty feet taller than building B, that's an absolute difference. If you say, building A is three-quarters as tall as building B, that's a relative difference. If all you can say is something like "one is a little bit taller than the other," or "one is a lot taller than the other," all you could call that is a comparative difference, since it isn't quantified.

[GAZZA]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here Phil, but surely the fact that +6 DEX gives you the ability to hit things twice as far away with the same accuracy suggests that there is an exponential component to OCV?

 

Though granted if you ignore range and size the other aspects of it are certainly linear.

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

I agreed that *what* was the same? Yes, I agree that "A + B = B + A," and I agree that "+10 STR, in the HERO System, means four times lifting capacity." But I don't agree that those two statements are analogous. As I said before: one is the commutative law of addition, and the other is a formula based on the rules of a game.

 

 

You really don't need to explain how +10 STR leads to four times the lifting capacity. I already agree to that. I understand how the rules of HERO work. You do not need to show me the math on this.

 

However, one statement *leading* to another, is not the same as those two statements being *equivalent*.

Are you saying that "=" is not the same as "equivalent" ?

 

I would think that “equal” is the basis for "equivalent."

 

But the real question is what does "adding + 1 OCV" represent in game world terms?

It represents a small increase in the likelihood of hitting one's target. For targets with a DCV that is one higher than the OCV (after all modifiers), it is a 12.5% increase in probability.

Could we agree that this change in OCV would amount to a "relative difference" from the perspective on characters in the game world?

That would depend on how the characters quantify the difference in their game world perceptions.

Your specific description of the matter was: “For targets with a DCV that is one higher than the OCV (after all modifiers), it is a 12.5% increase in probability.”

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here Phil' date=' but surely the fact that +6 DEX gives you the ability to hit things twice as far away with the same accuracy suggests that there is an exponential component to OCV?[/quote']

Sort of. To be more precise, you'd say that range has an exponential effect on OCV. Which is why I included the Range Mod as being Exponential in my very first post. I had left out the Size Modifier originally, but Mister E brought it to my attention in post #25, so I added it.

 

The linear effect of CV is seen in the fact that X OCV hits X+Y DCV at the same probability for any given Y, regardless of what X is.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Are you saying that "=" is not the same as "equivalent" ?

Correct. That's why we have different words for them, and why mathematics has different symbols for them. The symbol for "equivalent" is similar to '=', but it has three lines instead of two.

 

I would think that “equal” is the basis for "equivalent."

I suppose you could say that, but "basis for" is not the same as "same as".

 

Your specific description of the matter was: “For targets with a DCV that is one higher than the OCV (after all modifiers), it is a 12.5% increase in probability.”

Using *your* definitions, OCV and DCV are not "game world terms."

 

At the risk of confusing you even further, it should be noted also that a specific probablity (or a change in probability) is not the same as a specific value on a continuous scale. The probability of an event happening is somewhere between 0% and 100%, inclusive. "0%" and "100%" are hard boundaries. There's no such thing as being 150% likely, or -25% likely. Other types of values do not have those limits, such as weights, or money.

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Correct. That's why we have different words for them, and why mathematics has different symbols for them. The symbol for "equivalent" is similar to '=', but it has three lines instead of two.

 

I suppose you could say that, but "basis for" is not the same as "same as".

I showed that the two things were equal, therefore, according to the following, they must also be equivalent. . . .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation#Examples_of_equivalence_relations

 

Examples of equivalence relations

 

The obvious example of an equivalence relation is the equality ("=") relation between elements of any set.

 

 

 

 

Using *your* definitions, OCV and DCV are not "game world terms."

No, they're not, but that is not the point.

 

I'd the description, as a character in the game world would see it, of a game mechanics increase of +1 OCV (knowing that the character wouldn't call it +1 OCV), and please express the description in relative terms.

 

With all modifiers taken into account, lets say that we are dealing with a target DCV of 12 and an attacker OCV of 12 (13 with the +1 OCV). (again knowing that the characters wouldn't use OCV or DCV terms). What would be game world character's description of this change, expressed in relative terms?

[Rapier]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

What I'm arguing is that the fact there is a great difference between characters with 10' date='030 DEX and 10,000 DEX implies to me that there is not a linear relationship here.[/quote']

 

I can't believe I'm actually doing this. Ah well.

 

I think the problem comes down to definition and use.

 

I think we can all agree that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 is a linear scale. As is 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40. The difference between f(4) and f(6) is going to be the same as the difference between f(1) and f(3). That's clearly linear. The results of f(x+2) - f(x) will ALWAYS be the same. Regardless of what value we chose f(x+y) - f(x) will always result in the same value.

 

A linear scale is based upon each value being the same distance from it's previous value as it is to the next.

 

---------

 

You seem to be stuck on the fact that at the upper ends, the relative difference (or % difference as you seem to prefer) between two values on a linear scale is rather small.

 

We have a linear scale: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 100 101 102 103 104 105.

 

What is the difference between f(100) and f(105)? Well, that's the same difference as between f(50) and f(55). The difference is 5. But what does this 5 mean?

 

f(55) is 10% larger than f(50) and f(105) is only 5% larger than f(100). That means that 5 difference can be a 10% increase or a 5% increase. So the relative impact of the difference between the two values is (and we could continue this pattern out until we have enough to show a definitive pattern) decreasing by a certain factor.

 

Yes. You are very much correct. But the problem is that this does not change the fact that f(x) is a linear scale. What you have done is divorce the values from the scale and attempt to find a relation between them. That will always provide spurious and...odd...results.

 

Even though the relative impact of the change in the linear scale may be minor compared to the value at the data point it does not alter the scale. If you plot a linear function on a graph it will form a straight line. It will always be a straight line.

 

Further, you will find that the relative difference between any two points of any function (regardless of scale) will show the effect you have noticed as your approach infinity. The relative difference between the two values will decrease.

 

In a nutshell, as you approach f(oo) [that's an infinity, by the way] the relative (%) difference between f(x) and f(x - 1) approach 0.

 

Thems the maths.

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Further, you will find that the relative difference between any two points of any function (regardless of scale) will show the effect you have noticed as your approach infinity. The relative difference between the two values will decrease.

 

In a nutshell, as you approach f(oo) [that's an infinity, by the way] the relative (%) difference between f(x) and f(x - 1) approach 0.

 

Thems the maths.

 

Lets assume that f(x) = 2^(x)

 

You're saying that that the relative (%) difference between 2^(x) and 2^(x-1) get smaller as x goes toward infinity?

 

But that is not true, the relative (%) difference between 2^(x) and 2^(x-1) is always the same. It is always a 2:1 ratio.

 

The relative difference between 2^1 (which = 2) and 2^0 (which = 1) is exactly the same as the relative difference between 2^11 (which = 2048) and 2^10 (which = 1024).

 

And you'll see the exact same relative (%) difference between 2^1001 vs 2^1000

or 2^1,000,001 vs 2^1,000,000

 

No matter how high you go, it always keeps the same 2:1 ratio.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

With all modifiers taken into account' date=' lets say that we are dealing with a target DCV of 12 and an attacker OCV of 12 (13 with the +1 OCV). (again knowing that the characters wouldn't use OCV or DCV terms). What would be game world character's description of this change, expressed in relative terms?

Very well. I'm not sure what you think it will prove, but here goes:

 

OCV 12 (after all modifiers) vs DCV 12 (after all modifiers) has a 62.5% chance to hit.

OCV 13 vs DCV 12 has a 74.074% chance to hit.

The absolute difference in the probability of a hit is 74.074 - 62.5 = 11.574%.

So the relative difference in the probability of a hit is 11.574 / 62.5 = 18.518%.

 

In other words, out of 100 swings, you can expect 62 or 63 hits for the 12 vs. 12 case.

If the OCV increases by one, you can expect an additional 11 or 12 hits.

That would be a 18.5% increase in the number of hits.

 

There you go. I'm still waiting for you to present *any* argument how this is exponential.

 

In case you're interested, I'll go a step further and give to the stats for an additional +1 OCV (which would mean 14 OCV vs 12 DCV):

 

Proability of hitting goes up by an additional 9.7222% - in absolute terms (to a total of 83.796%).

Relative increase in probability is 13.125%.

 

For the next +1 OCV, you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 6.9444% (total: 90.74%), which is a relative increase of 8.287%.

 

For the next +1 OCV (16 vs 12), you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 4.63% (total 95.37%), which is a relative increase of 5.102%.

 

For the next +1 OCV (17 vs 12, 16 or less to hit), you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 2.778% (total 98.15%), which is a relative increase of 2.913%.

 

For the next +1 OCV (18 vs 12, 17- to hit), you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 1.389% (total 99.537%), which is a relative increase of about 1.415%.

 

It doesn't go any higher than this because of the "18 always misses" rule. But if that rule didn't exist, the next (and final) increase would be 0.463% (to a total of 100%), for a relative increase of about 0.465%.

 

If you like, you can extend this on the downward side (the chances of OCV 11 hitting DCV 12, etc.).

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Very well. I'm not sure what you think it will prove, but here goes:

 

OCV 12 (after all modifiers) vs DCV 12 (after all modifiers) has a 62.5% chance to hit.

OCV 13 vs DCV 12 has a 74.074% chance to hit.

The absolute difference in the probability of a hit is 74.074 - 62.5 = 11.574%.

So the relative difference in the probability of a hit is 11.574 / 62.5 = 18.518%.

 

In other words, out of 100 swings, you can expect 62 or 63 hits for the 12 vs. 12 case.

If the OCV increases by one, you can expect an additional 11 or 12 hits.

That would be a 18.5% increase in the number of hits.

 

There you go. I'm still waiting for you to present *any* argument how this is exponential.

 

In case you're interested, I'll go a step further and give to the stats for an additional +1 OCV (which would mean 14 OCV vs 12 DCV):

 

Proability of hitting goes up by an additional 9.7222% - in absolute terms (to a total of 83.796%).

Relative increase in probability is 13.125%.

 

For the next +1 OCV, you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 6.9444% (total: 90.74%), which is a relative increase of 8.287%.

 

For the next +1 OCV (16 vs 12), you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 4.63% (total 95.37%), which is a relative increase of 5.102%.

 

For the next +1 OCV (17 vs 12, 16 or less to hit), you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 2.778% (total 98.15%), which is a relative increase of 2.84%.

 

For the next +1 OCV (18 vs 12, 17- to hit), you get an absolute increase in probability of hitting of 1.389% (total 99.537%), which is a relative increase of about 1.42%.

 

It doesn't go any higher than this because of the "18 always misses" rule. But if that rule didn't exist, the next (and final) increase would be 0.463% (to a total of 100%), for a relative increase of about 0.48%.

 

If you like, you can extend this on the downward side (the chances of OCV 11 hitting DCV 12, etc.).

OK, that is a good answer to the question. . . .

 

But take it a bit deeper.

 

Lets say that we are talking about a magic amulet which could be used by just about anybody.

 

From a rules stand point, the amulet gives +1 OCV, but the characters in the game would view this bonus differently.

 

As you've pointed out the actual impact of the accuracy bonus from using the amulet would change depending on who was using it, against which target.

 

Against the same target, a character who was able to hit 63% if the time would now (with the amulet) hit 74% of the time, however, a character who was able to hit 95% of the time would, with the amulet, be able to hit 98% of the time.

 

So how might the characters describe the impact of using this amulet, in a more general sense?

[GAZZA]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

As you've pointed out the actual impact of the accuracy bonus from using the amulet would change depending on who was using it, against which target.

 

Against the same target, a character who was able to hit 63% if the time would now (with the amulet) hit 74% of the time, however, a character who was able to hit 95% of the time would, with the amulet, be able to hit 98% of the time.

 

So how might the characters describe the impact of using this amulet, in a more general sense?

OK, we have experimental individuals - perhaps they are Hero Gamers in their Secret IDs.

 

You couch the above query as something that the individuals would find mysterious - "Hmm, it makes him X better, but me Y? I wonder what's going on?" However, that wouldn't be the case. If the individuals in question had studied things to the extent that they were able to figure out - in some sense - how the "combat system" worked (OCV vs DCV), then they would already have encountered many situations that were analogous. For example, they would have noted that with two identical individuals attacking the same target, the one that tries to Punch will hit more often than the one that tries to Grab, and they'll deduce the exact same difference in percentage that this amulet will have.

 

It is true that the fact Champions uses 3d6 to resolve actions (a bell shaped curve) rather than 1d20 (a line) means that +1 means more for some rolls than others, but it's still linear - it makes no difference where you are on the scale, +10 is still +10. At best you are arguing that the world of the bell shaped curve means that nothing is linear, and if you insist on that definition, what term are you going to invent in its place?

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

At best you are arguing that the world of the bell shaped curve means that nothing is linear' date=' and if you insist on that definition, what term are you going to invent in its place?[/quote']

My argument about the impact of increasing CV has nothing specific to do with bell curves.

 

As far as the bell curve goes, the characters might describe this as some "law of decreasing returns" type of thing.

 

 

You couch the above query as something that the individuals would find mysterious - "Hmm, it makes him X better, but me Y? I wonder what's going on?" However, that wouldn't be the case. If the individuals in question had studied things to the extent that they were able to figure out - in some sense - how the "combat system" worked (OCV vs DCV), then they would already have encountered many situations that were analogous. For example, they would have noted that with two identical individuals attacking the same target, the one that tries to Punch will hit more often than the one that tries to Grab, and they'll deduce the exact same difference in percentage that this amulet will have.

Yes, there are other examples of OCV enhancement than a magic amulet.

 

 

So, from the character's point of view, we have some sort of "offence factor." Also we can increase this factor by a set amount and look at the impact on offense/defense contests.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Wow. So many words. I thought there were only three scales to include in the Master List of Scales:

 

- Snakes

- Alligators

- Fish

 

You people sure talk a lot 'bout nuthin.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

In my last post, I made a few slight calculation errors in the last three values of the relative increases, I have edited the post to include the correct values. I'm not sure where the error crept in, but my results were pretty close anyway.

 

Lets say that we are talking about a magic amulet which could be used by just about anybody.

How does that change the situation in any meaningful way? +1 from a magic amulet has the same impact as +1 from a purchased CSL, or +1 from a maneuver, or +1 from +3 DEX, etc. You don't have to answer this question. I don't mean to distract you from the main question, which remains: Why do you think CV is non-linear?

 

So how might the characters describe the impact of using this amulet, in a more general sense?

Didn't we cover this already? They would describe it thusly: "This magic amulate makes my attacks slightly more accurate."

 

If they really wanted to go into more detail than that, they might say, "This magic amulet makes its wearer's attacks a little bit more accurate (that is, a little more likely to hit). For those attacks that are already very likely to hit, there isn't much room for improvement, so the accuracy doesn't increase very much. For those attacks that are highly unlikely to hit, the improvement is also fairly small. But for those attacks that have closer to equal chances of hitting or missing, the increase in accuracy is most significant."

 

Having answered this question, I still don't see what your point is. How does any of this relate to demonstrating how the impact of CV is non-linear?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Lets assume that f(x) = 2^(x)

Do you see how you completely ignored Rapier's argument and then changed his linear function to an exponential one?

 

You're saying that that the relative (%) difference between 2^(x) and 2^(x-1) get smaller as x goes toward infinity?

Do you see how you unfairly assumed that his claim about a linear function still applies after changing it to exponential?

 

Sure enough, linear functions and exponential functions are different. They have different properties. That's why we have different names for them.

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

In my last post, I made a few slight calculation errors in the last three values of the relative increases, I have edited the post to include the correct values. I'm not sure where the error crept in, but my results were pretty close anyway.

Your results were close enough.

 

How does that change the situation in any meaningful way? +1 from a magic amulet has the same impact as +1 from a purchased CSL, or +1 from a maneuver, or +1 from +3 DEX, etc. You don't have to answer this question. I don't mean to distract you from the main question, which remains: Why do you think CV is non-linear?

The amulet is helpful because it is an example of the characters being able to see the same increase being applied from one character to another.

 

And in terms of "why CV is non-linear," I'm getting to that.

 

Didn't we cover this already? They would describe it thusly: "This magic amulate makes my attacks slightly more accurate."

 

If they really wanted to go into more detail than that, they might say, "This magic amulet makes its wearer's attacks a little bit more accurate (that is, a little more likely to hit). For those attacks that are already very likely to hit, there isn't much room for improvement, so the accuracy doesn't increase very much. For those attacks that are highly unlikely to hit, the improvement is also fairly small. But for those attacks that have closer to equal chances of hitting or missing, the increase in accuracy is most significant."

I was sort of hoping that we could get to a specific idea. This idea I was trying for is that the characters in the game could see that there was some sort of "offense factor" which drives how likely one is to hit (although they probably would not call it OCV).

 

Having answered this question, I still don't see what your point is. How does any of this relate to demonstrating how the impact of CV is non-linear?

 

As I said above, I'm getting to that.

[GAZZA]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

I was sort of hoping that we could get to a specific idea. This idea I was trying for is that the characters in the game could see that there was some sort of "offense factor" which drives how likely one is to hit (although they probably would not call it OCV).

Well, it depends.

 

If the world in which the characters "live" is actually constrained and described by the rules as laid out in the HERO system, then they might well come to such a deduction (it's certainly theoretically possible). However this is a strange world! It is a world where in a 100 metre dash, you see the runners run a bit, then stop for 3 seconds, then run a bit more, and stop for another 3 seconds... It is a world where two objects moving at the same average velocity do different damage on impact depending on how fast their "reflexes" are (with the "slower reflex" object doing more damage).

 

On the other hand, perhaps the rules are merely an abstraction of the way the game world works for the purposes of play. That implies a significant amount of realism in the game world that we (as the players) abstract away, but the characters cannot. So you have the same situation as in the real world, where there are myriad factors involved in the question "How accurate am I?". I am openly skeptical that results to a 1/216 accuracy could be obtained in a realistic setting (too much "noise" in varying conditions, even in a shooting range or other relatively controlled environment). And that means that even dedicated HERO-gamer-in-secret-ID characters aren't going to be able to work things out to the degree of precision we're using for the abstraction.

 

Which brings us full circle back to the point: since it is only an abstraction, asking what the characters think of it in the world they inhabit is (to some extent) a non-sequitur. Phil isn't describing the reality that they see; he's describing the abstraction that we use to simulate it. Differences between "reality" and the model means that questions about the former don't necessarily have any relevance to the latter.

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Do you see how you unfairly assumed that his claim about a linear function still applies after changing it to exponential?

 

Sure enough, linear functions and exponential functions are different. They have different properties. That's why we have different names for them.

 

I think you mis-read his actual quote, I will remind you what he said:

 

Further, you will find that the relative difference between any two points of any function (regardless of scale) will show the effect you have noticed as your approach infinity. The relative difference between the two values will decrease.

( did you catch the part where he said "any function" ? )

 

I can repeat for you, and make it still larger, if you missed it.

 

He did refer to linear functions earlier in his post, but "any function" would include both linear and exponential functions.

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Phil isn't describing the reality that they see; he's describing the abstraction that we use to simulate it. Differences between "reality" and the model means that questions about the former don't necessarily have any relevance to the latter.

So the fact that a given increase in X points of STR means an increase in Y kg lifting ability in the game world is not about what the characters see?

 

Are you suggesting that X points in combat flight results in Y increase in game world velocity has nothing to do with what the game characters directly experience?

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

I responded to part of this quote above, but I also wanted to get the other part as well. . . .

 

Well, it depends.

 

If the world in which the characters "live" is actually constrained and described by the rules as laid out in the HERO system, then they might well come to such a deduction (it's certainly theoretically possible). However this is a strange world! It is a world where in a 100 metre dash, you see the runners run a bit, then stop for 3 seconds, then run a bit more, and stop for another 3 seconds... It is a world where two objects moving at the same average velocity do different damage on impact depending on how fast their "reflexes" are (with the "slower reflex" object doing more damage).

 

On the other hand, perhaps the rules are merely an abstraction of the way the game world works for the purposes of play. That implies a significant amount of realism in the game world that we (as the players) abstract away, but the characters cannot. So you have the same situation as in the real world, where there are myriad factors involved in the question "How accurate am I?". I am openly skeptical that results to a 1/216 accuracy could be obtained in a realistic setting (too much "noise" in varying conditions, even in a shooting range or other relatively controlled environment). And that means that even dedicated HERO-gamer-in-secret-ID characters aren't going to be able to work things out to the degree of precision we're using for the abstraction.

I do agree that there are some big problems with trying to look too deeply at the game-rules/game-world interactions. However, I also assume that these abstract rules are supposed to relate to a world that we can hopefully visualize, and which should "make sense" to us at some level.

[GAZZA]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

So the fact that a given increase in X points of STR means an increase in Y kg lifting ability in the game world is not about what the characters see?

Err... yes, that's right. On multiple levels:

• 
  
• It is doubtful anyone "really" knows exactly how much they can lift without noticably slowing down. It would vary from day to day, even from hour to hour on the same day.
  
• Leaving that aside, though, even if they can get Y kg of lifting ability that doesn't mean that can figure out that it's X points of STR. The latter has no meaning to the characters. At best they could rank themselves based on their ability to lift things or perhaps throw things. So what? It is a stretch to state that from that point they can reason through how much "STUN" or "BODY" they can do.

Are you suggesting that X points in combat flight results in Y increase in game world velocity has nothing to do with what the game characters directly experience?

That's a slam dunk. Characters do not directly experience the "X", "Y", or indeed have any idea what "combat flight" means. Here again, realistically nobody runs the 100 metre dash at exactly the same speed every time. It's an abstraction, and as such it's not meaningful to stare too closely at it.

 

But in any case, what do either of those points (even if I agreed with them) have to do with whether or not CV is a linear scale or not? Or do you now agree that this is the case?

[Warp9]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

 

Err... yes, that's right. On multiple levels:

• 
  
• It is doubtful anyone "really" knows exactly how much they can lift without noticably slowing down. It would vary from day to day, even from hour to hour on the same day.
  
• Leaving that aside, though, even if they can get Y kg of lifting ability that doesn't mean that can figure out that it's X points of STR. The latter has no meaning to the characters. At best they could rank themselves based on their ability to lift things or perhaps throw things. So what? It is a stretch to state that from that point they can reason through how much "STUN" or "BODY" they can do.

It seems likely that the character's lift would vary a bit between different times. The rules give us the basics, but in this case the GM could use his common sense to deal with specific situations where minor variations in lifting ability would be important. Although IMO ideally the rules would handle this situation.

 

I'm not suggesting that the character's would actually know their Hero STR score. The point is that this score actually has an impact on the game world. And that impact on the game world is something that the characters can experience. The scale in this case is the relationship between the abstract rules (which the characters do not see) and the game world (which the characters do see).

 

That's a slam dunk. Characters do not directly experience the "X", "Y", or indeed have any idea what "combat flight" means. Here again, realistically nobody runs the 100 metre dash at exactly the same speed every time. It's an abstraction, and as such it's not meaningful to stare too closely at it.

Again, as above, I'm not suggesting that the characters would know what combat flight means---but they could experience the impact of that ability as it applies to the game world.

 

And again, it seems likely that the character's running speed would vary a bit at different times. The rules give us the basics, but in this case the GM could use his common sense to deal with specific situations where minor variations in running ability would be important.

 

But in any case, what do either of those points (even if I agreed with them) have to do with whether or not CV is a linear scale or not? Or do you now agree that this is the case?

These points are an answer to one of your statements (see below).

 

Phil isn't describing the reality that they see; he's describing the abstraction that we use to simulate it. Differences between "reality" and the model means that questions about the former don't necessarily have any relevance to the latter.

My point was that "scale" is about the relationship between the world of the game mechanics and the actual effects that the character in the game would see.

 

Example

 

GAME MECHANICS: "30 Lifting STR" (characters do not know about it in these terms)

 

GAME WORLD: "Ability to lift 1600 kg" (characters do know about this result)

 

 

The question is, what is the actual impact that "+1 OCV" has from the perspective of the characters? Does it represent a linear increase in game world offensive (targeting) ability? So far, Phil has dealt with percentages of targeting success in various contests, and that is great. But I want to go beyond just saying that "Character A has a +12% chance to hit Character B," and make some statements about the actual offensive ability increase. I'd like to look at what type of change in offensive ability would give that observed increase.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

Scary people

 

All of yah

 

QM

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO

 

I was sort of hoping that we could get to a specific idea. This idea I was trying for is that the characters in the game could see that there was some sort of "offense factor" which drives how likely one is to hit (although they probably would not call it OCV).

"a specific idea" ... "in a more general sense." OK.

 

I'm not so sure that the characters would ever see an "offense factor," because it doesn't mean anything by itself. In order to determine how likely it is to hit, you need both the "offense factor" and the "defense factor," or more simply, the difference between the two. It is this difference (between OCV and DCV) that especially observant and patient characters might eventually see. But for the sake of the discussion, I'll buy an observable "offense factor" for now, but only in conjunction with a "defense factor."