Warp9

Here is something I've been working on this morning. More 2D stuff this time. This one is another pencil sketch which I scanned in, and then colorized.

Re: Thanks for a starting point... Thanks, I’m glad that you like my work. Here is my suggestion (whatever it may be worth) for getting proportions right. I start with a very loose and light sketch, maybe even a stick body with stick hands and feet (I often use ovals instead of lines). Once I have the proportions so that they look good in the primitive sketch, then I go back and finish up the drawing using the raw sketch as a guide.

I’ve shown some stuff that I made with 3D techniques, and one colorized sketch. Here is a picture made with a combination of techniques. The background is 3D, but the character is a colorized pencil sketch. How does this piece compare to my other work? (pure 3D and pure 2D)

Re: Responces to art - pg. 2 I think that you are probably looking at a part of the forearm between the hand and the sleve (which is covered in a white metallic glove). I should eventually try to fix the drawing to make that more obvious. And I don't know why I didn't put in the wrist-band on the left arm (like on the right arm), it should have been visible too.

Lemming: your IcePirate looks great. I only have one suggestion, and this is purely a matter of personal taste, so it may not be that useful to you. It is probably the Heavy Metal “vib†of her outfit, but I think a more gritty/nasty looking weapon would fit her better, the Ice Energy Blade looks too “clean.†Redmenace: the templates you’ve created all look very professional. It is nice of you to create something that will help others create their own heroes. As far as suggestions for improvement, I may be wrong about this, but the arms in “ltwt2.jpg“ look a little bit short to me. Everything else looks great. All in all, great work. Killer Shrike: You seem to be able to turn out a high volume of very nice work. I’ve already told you before that I really like the Major Savage piece. And I still intend to build a 3D model off of it (as I mentioned before in the other thread). As far as suggestions for improvement go, every suggestion that I can think of has already been mentioned.

Here is the a new version of the Combat Droid which I’ve been working on. . . . I'm probably going to use it when I redo the Kronos scene. Do you like it better or worse than the old version of the Droid? Note: I haven’t yet worked all the good suggestions about the background into the new image, but I will make background changes soon.

I really like this thread. I did get some really good feed back on the other character art thread. But I didn't get as much feedback as I would've liked (giving/getting feedback was not really the focus of the other thread). Here I've gotten more feedback, which is what I was looking for.

Thanks for all the great feedback! I’m not satisfied with my “Kronos VS Combat Droid scene,†for a number of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that I don’t think that I did as good a job as I could have in translating my original concept of Kronos. Before making a model, I always sketch out the subject in pencil first. I used the pencil sketch to guide the modeling process. But, after the model was made, I scanned in my original sketch and then colorized it. After looking at the colorized version of my sketch, I was even less happy with my 3D version. This image will hopefully give everyone a good idea about what I was trying to do with Kronos. And it will also serve as an example of my work in a different medium. There might also be some useful observations relating to the differences in the way I do work in different mediums. Note: in the colorization process of my sketch, I made a few different choices about hair and skin color than I did in the 3D model. Kronos Sketch (colorized) I have already been given a number of useful suggestions. And any more good advice on making the next Kronos model look more like my sketch will be helpful.

Re: Equity - submitted for your review Great job on the mentallist character. I like the pose, I like the detail on the belt and the bracelets. If there is anything at all which I could recommend to improve it, it might be nice to see just a little more detail in the neck area. Overall an awesome picture. And thank you for the very articulate feedback. And I am especially pleased with the feedback on the Kronos scene because I am thinking about redoing it.

I have been hoping for some feedback on my stuff, so I think that I’ll re-post some of it here. I have various types of work I’ve done, but the following are some of my 3D works. Note: everything you’ll see here is totally designed by me (people, hair, robots, landscape, etc. . .). I don’t use Poser models. Unfortunately, I don’t think that my models are as good as Poser stuff yet, but I am learning. Do my models have the same general feel as Poser models? (I’m too close to the matter to be objective) Kronos VS Combat Droid 3D Magnum 1 Emperor Talgorth

So far everything I’ve seen looks good. I’ll have to think about it a while and see if I can come up with some useful comments. I do have some comments on the Arclight picture. Of course, this is not the first time I’ve seen that image, so I’ve had longer to think about it than the other pictures. First off, I really like the concept for Arclight. But there are a couple of suggestions for a little bit of improvement. It would be cool to see a bit more of the target he is firing at. The zig-zag pattern of the energy blast looks a little to predictable for an electric bolt (but I don’t know if that is what you were going for). And finally, it would be cool to see more detail work done on the background. StarSong, if memory serves, you mentioned having some experience as a line artist. It would be cool if you could compare and contrast your experiences with Poser against a more traditional medium.

Re: Re: Re: How to quantify a super's superiority over normals? Hmmm. Interesting. . . this topic of conservation sounds somehow familiar.

Yeah, that should probably work pretty well.

Does it use a formula, or does it run through all the possibilities to figure net damage?

You're right, the issue I brought up won't have a major effect most of the time. I was too lazy to work out a general rule. I just designed a program to spin through all possible combos for a given number of dice. I'd find the total net damage over the spread (given a specific defense), and find the average net damage for a single shot by dividing the total damage by the total shots. Basically I made my computer do the same thing that you probably did by hand. The only problem with that approach is that, even with a computer, too many dice will take a long while to work through.

That's nice, and I could probably set up a GUI interface to it. But I think I see a problem with the way that you calculate average damage (or maybe I'm just not understanding the way you do things). It may be kind of "nit-picky" but here goes. . . . I'll give a hypothetical case: Imagine that I'm shooting a 2d6 EB (Energy Based) at a target with 7 ED. I have a 90.7 percent chance to hit, and my speed is 12. (godlike speed--pansy attack) My average damage is 7 points. And after taking off the target's defenses, the average damage is 0. And after all calculations (by your system) comes out to 0 per turn (12 SPD * 0 Stun = 0 damage). But that is not how it works. If you play out the situation (2d6 vs 7 Def), you'll find that the attacker does damage almost half the time. And with a 12 speed and 90% accuracy, that damage could really add up over time. (That would be especially true of BODY damage--BODY damage has a way of sticking with a target) The problem that the average net damage per shot is not really 0. That is because the low rolls don't really cancel out the high rolls. Given a 7 ED, any attack that does less than 7 on the dice, might as well be a 7 because you can't have a negative amount of STUN. To put it a different way imagine that the attacker (on 3 different shots) rolls a 4, 7, and 10. The mathematical average for those 3 rolls is 7 (4 + 7 + 10 = 21) (21/3 = 7) . But the Net damage (after 7 ED) for those 3 rolls is 3 points (or 1 point of Net Damage per roll). I hope that explains what I'm trying to say--if not please let me know. . . .

I was going to do a Harry Potter based Hero game. But I was going to run it a little differently than in the books. In my game Harry would be all grown up and coming back to teach at his old school. He'd be given a special challenge--he'd have to teach a group of backward students. These students are magicians who keep on screwing up everything they try. People would call Harry's group the "sweat-hogwarts." And I'll title my game "Welcome Back Potter."

Thanks.

Perhaps you just didn't find the right software. I really like what I'm using. IMO Poser (and the like) may do too much for you. You get a better feel for what is going on in virtual space by building stuff from the ground up. (Poser is a very good program--but there are other options out there)

Before I make a 3D model, I try to make a sketch of it first so I have something to work from. I'm including the sketch that I did before making the model of Kronos. (scanned and colorized, of course) And here is a link back to the 3D scene (for comparison). Kronos VS Combat Droid 3D (this scene was originally posted a ways back) I don't think I did that great job of making the 3D model look like the drawing. Some of it was intentional (like choosing to make the hair of the model black instead of brown), but much of it was accidental. I'm still new at this stuff, so hopefully I'll do better next time. I am aware of a number of things I could have done to have made the model look more like the sketch. But any suggestions that the rest of you may have would be welcome too. Anyway, here is the sketch. . . .

Oh, and for a sense of comparison a 9mm pistol does 2d6 in GURPS a 15mm BMG does 16d6 in GURPS

First off, thank you for believing that I'm are real (and legitimate) poster, Trebuchet. I don't know if Monolith was referring to me or not in is statement, but I might point out that I am not that new. I've been registered since Feb (as long as I could be on these new boards). I'm just generally more of a lurker than a poster. Anyway, for a look at what linear damage might be like on a massive scale, I'd refer to GURPS. Some Weapon stats from GURPS (linear system) A big Particle Beam weapon on a Mech (from GURPS Mecha) does 6d6X500 (or 3000 d6) A big star ship weapon (from GURPS Traveller) does 6d6X10,000 (or 60,000 d6) A 1 Kton yield Nuke (from GURPS Mecha) does 12d6X200,000 (or 2.4 Million d6)

Hey look dude, I didn't write the Hero rules--I'm just letting you know what they say. Nobody said that you have to use the Hero rules as written. But I love all the Hero rules just as they are! And I am saying that there is some strong evidence, in the Hero rules as written, to support exponential damage.

It takes only double the body of an object to destroy it fully (FREd page 302). And by its mass Earth has less than 100 Body. But don't take my word for it, here is a quote from thread about how much damage it would take to destroy the planet. http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4931&perpage=15&pagenumber=2 I'm getting a little tired of making this point over and over again. I have supplied multiple items of game world evidence--but it just keeps getting ignored. Trebuchet, do you accept the fact that the Hero rules say that the Earth would be destroyed by a 200d6 EB? (yes or no)

I am also discussing in-game mechanics--your statement that I'm not is simply untrue. And please explain to me how Kristopher's 2 statements are not contradictions. He has stated that: there cannot be a realationship between power and damage in the Hero game System. And he has also stated that: there is a 1 to 1 realtionship between power and damage in the Hero game system. (3d6 = 3X the power of 1d6) How can those 2 things not be contradictions?