Jump to content

mwpowellhtx

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. It's true, could solve for distance or velocity, depending on the starting point. The couple of trajectory models I am studying like to start from initial angles, velocities, and even incorporate rotation or spin, to help determine stability during flight. Yes, timing will be worked out as players are moved around the field; i.e. if defender is within X amount of distance, say a meter or two, he could plausibly make an attempt to deflect, or even intercept, a pass. Anyhow, thanks so much for the feedback, it's appreciated.
  2. How far might be another question. Not how far, but how fast: initial velocity. If I take the damage dice as a modifier, could start from a calibrated 42 MPH base (who knew? answer to life the universe and everything), then add in the damage roll as the resulting initial velocity, that seems to work out pretty well. With a STR 20, 4d6, on average that's about 14; 42+14=56, which is right in the neighborhood of a pro QB throwing velocity. Kickers are a little bit different calibration, same modifier, velocities can range anywhere into the 70 MPH range. Doesn't need to be precise
  3. Hello, I am working on a sports engine and want to model an accurately interpreted trajectory calculation from an initial velocity and angle. I'm confident enough with the physics part of it. What I need a little help with is converting from STR to that Initial Velocity. Possibly parallel discussion around DEX-based (or combat scores, challenges, etc) around the Angles. Couple of "real world" examples: QB throws pass with trajectory: Initial Velocity + Angle contributing to trajectory, the timing of which determines how long ball will be in flight, approximately where it should lan
  4. I think I see what they're talking about. Applying GM discretion, there's a fine line between limited category and sub-category, IMO. I'm not sure I see enough of a distinction for game play purposes to justify that much detail. I do appreciate the feedback.
  5. Fair enough. I am prepared to derive my own set of calculations out of otherwise informed options at my disposal if that's what it takes. I'll have a closer look at VF, though. First glance, still, being that it seems more geared to top end movement, vehicles, supers, and the like. Thanks. The feedback is appreciated.
  6. I hear you. But not impossible. I'd like to quantify it somehow if possible. Nevermind gauging kicking distance and accuracy of a punt or field goal, or did the QB throw a direct pass or arc one over the WR shoulders. I've read some posts that claim, I haven't done the math myself, that the scales are horrible at this sort of thing. 'Real world', some authorities I am reading on the subject of 40 yard dash, for example, are more concerned about acceleration than necessarily top end velocity. So, where HS appears to capture time and distance, and as far as I know, an approximation of ac
  7. Hello, I want to come up with a way to more accurately model sports genre movement, velocity, possibly extending into acceleration. These are some formative thoughts. As a basis, I am dissatisfied with the recommendations in HE6E. Haven't examined 5E that closely, but I expect I would find similar recommendations. I have also read about a 'velocity factor' optional rule, but I don't know the details, apart from the fact that it seems to be more DEX-based in nature, which would be closer to providing 'athletic' differentiation, if you will. Just talking about the genre, I don't care about sc
  8. Well, the interpretation doesn't need to be perfect, but I would like for the pattern to be somewhat consistent. 'Rules as written' are not especially concise, IMO, so this is what I am trying to suss out. What math are you doing to arrive at 4 CP for +2? For what? The limited category skill(s)? Or the group? I could be wrong, but as I read the CHA-based skills, to Limited Categories, to General Categories: CHA-based: 3 CP to buy, 2 CP for +1; that I know of this is the max cost, whether 'limited' or 'general' in scope; i.e. Survival versus Survival: Woodlands. Limite
  9. I may indeed be overthinking it. For what I'm doing with this, I want to decompose the meta rules. So far it's shaping up like cost structure, as a near corollary, skill rolls, is a separate concern from the skills themselves, which is fine by me. It works out much nicer that way. Fair enough re: Familiarity vs. Proficiency, etc. I'm not sure I would decompose 'Survival' that way. You did read the same 6E1 section re: Cha-based versus Limited Category? I interpret Survival to be the 3/+2 INT-based skill, whereas Survival: Arctic might be considered the limited 2/+1 category;
  10. From earlier replies, I'm not sure this is a more formalized version of a 5E addendum. It can probably be sussed out of other pages, but specifically, I am referring to Hero System 6E1 p54, the sidebar 'Skill Cost Structures': "Characters buy some types of Characteristic-Based Skills ... by limited categories". There is a little additional explanation on p56, 'Familiarity And Proficiency', insofar as cost structures, associated skill rolls, and so on, are concerned. I am assuming that all Characteristic-Based Skills are all 'general' by their nature; i.e. Survival might be considered a
  11. Follow up question, when considering upgrades from Background into their CHA-based equivalents... Background to General CHA-based, makes sense the cost is +1 CP to upgrade; plus distributing the +1 costs accordingly; i.e. if Joe bought BG: Survival level 3 and upgraded to CHA: Survival, that would be 2+1+1+1=5 CP for BG. Just taking the raw CP total, 5-3-2 ~= CHA: Survival level 1. The thought being that the check would end up being better, assuming Joe's INT justifies the exchange, and GM approves. Let's consider the Limited Categories. Besides being able to upgrade individual LC's, o
  12. I could be off base in my estimation what I read, Hero System 6E1 p54, but I would argue skills like Science skill, or a specialized version of it, since it was mentioned, are CHA-based (namely, INT). Which is part and partial my confusion. Duly noted re: character types. Not sure that would necessarily play a factor in what I am doing with it, but that's fair enough. It may be something I want to consider, character types influence cost structures. As was explained elsewhere in the thread, the cost structure is basically, Background: 11-, 2/+1 schedule; CHA-based: 9+CHA/5: 3/2+. And t
  13. Thank you for making an effort. I'm sure I didn't phrase it well to begin with. I'm not sure I understand the meta-meta details behind the front-facing numbers. This is what I'm really asking. There are pages and pages of explanation, but not much that says, 'here is the cost structure', that I could determine, in a succinct, concise manner. So if I understand your interpretation on the subject, skills come in qualitatively different cost structures, depending on how, in what quality, they're purchased. I'll have to re-read those parts of 6E where Skills are outlined. I'm
  14. Hello, Happy holidays! I am trying to understand Background versus Characteristic-based skills, specializations, etc, their costs, roll structures, etc. In 6e, Volume 1 p54, 'Skill Cost Structures', Science, for instance, is listed as Background. Then they go on to explain how that is usually INT-based; not Science, per se, although it is (or should be), but Background skills in general. What's the difference? Sounds Characteristic based to me: i.e. General Science, or Science: Astronomy, Science: Chemistry, and so on. Furthermore the cost structure looks very similar to that o
  15. I'd like to clarify something, in previous edition(s) (?) of HS, secondary Characteristics base values used to be calculated from their base Characteristic(s). I see that in HS6 the base value is at least a reflection of that, but the calculation has vanished. Now I don't consider myself a hardcore HS "must-calculate-secondary-characteristics-from-the-dependencies" kind of guy, but is that still the case for HS6 and was just left out? Or was that intentional? Or now considered one of those discretionary GM decisions? Thank you...
×
×
  • Create New...