Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

mwpowellhtx's Achievements

  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, just mechanically work out pretty well during simulation.
  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 land, unless player intervenes (i.e. receives, deflects, intercepts, or falls incomplete).Kicker kicks punt with trajectory: Initial Velocity + Angle ... or kicks off ... or free kicks ... of attempts field goal.Pitcher attempts slider pitch across home plate ...Left Wing attempts slap shot at net ... Anyway, you get the idea. Making the assumption we're dealing with Characteristics, Skills, and other traits, in a human realm; Characteristic scores may exceed 20, but we're not talking about superhuman scales here, only a better honed, better performing version of the same human. If anyone had any insights into the HERO System itself, that would be helpful. Does not need to be precise, just a good starting point. Would help establish some basis, some precedent, at any rate. Thank you in advance...
  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 acceleration in SPD per Phase (?), with Segmented Movement, and so on, perhaps that's good enough. Other than that, I am planning on capturing a lot of combat maneuvers, mapping them to relevant skills, and there being a lot of skill/skill or skill/cha or cha/cha contests going on. i.e. QB 'Throws' pass to a WR whose assigned CB has an active man-to-man 'Cover' action in effect, if QB fails, chances are CB deflected (at least) or intercepted (worst case, for the QB), the ball. Zone coverage might be 'Cover' but at a -1 (or more) due to area. TBD, thinking that one through. If an engine can resolve the turns, phases, movement, and called actions accurately, if not precisely, that's good enough IMO. It can be improved from there.
  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 scaling into heroic or even superheroic leagues, per se; which, understandably, seems to be the recommendations I find in either 5E or 6E. Taking a step back, let's consider human movement in general. Average walking speed is about 3 MPH. Jogging is anywhere from 4-6 MPH. A really FAST sprinter is something like ~25 MPH, perhaps even a little better. And we work from there. In football, for example, another metric is in the combine, 40-yard dash, which apparently has its roots in punting hang times; something like ~4.5 seconds to run 40 yards is a good measure. Athletically, I figure I should be taking into consideration, characteristics, like Speed, or Dexterity, or even Strength, movement, like Running, and this mysterious 'velocity factor'. Perhaps just do the math and calculate Running from these other metrics and go from there into what seems reasonable to purchase initially, develop over time, and so on. Segmenting player movement is something I also want to consider, especially as befits determining acceleration, maximum movement rate (i.e. velocity, or 'velocity factor'), and so on.
  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. Limited categories are still CHA-based, but with limited scope: i.e. the Survival: Woodlands example. 2 CP to buy, 1 CP for +1 individually Does it make sense you can buy the group? Debatable; separating cost structure from skill, let the skill describe its scope. The cost starts looking more like the CHA-based 3/2. That's me, probably over thinking it. As a group, however, you can upgrade the group, 2 CP for +1 as a group And so on, through Background, Familiarity, the only difference being the quality of roll, 11- or 8-, respectively. We've beat this one adequately to death. I've got a pretty good handle on it now, methinks. Thanks.
  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; Survival: Woodlands might be considered 1/+1 for limited category purposes. Later, the player may specialize the general group +1 over all for 2 CP, or just Arctic for 1 CP. And so on. I haven't actually examined the Science Skill that closely, per se. It is mentioned as a background skill; GM discretion IMO whether that ought to be Cha-based. But anywho... Fair enough. Thank you for the response.
  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 Characteristic-Based Skill (3/+2). Yet, one limited form might be Survival: Woodlands (2/+1). A subsequent limited form might be Survival: Mountains (1/+1). And so on...
  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, or whole Categories, the cost structure is the same as BG, yet for a CHA-based. So while the CP are the same, the tradeoff is narrowing Joe's effective field of knowledge?
  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 then, sometimes limited/general in category; adjust cost schedule accordingly. Mainly looking for a way to codify the matter, for which I'm starting to see the pattern. Thank ye for responding.
  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 not sure it was all that clear. Hey, by all means, you may try, if it means clarifying the assumptions that went in behind the numbers on the surface. At a certain point, I must make a 'GM discretion' call I think. I'd like for that to be as informed as possible though. I'll see if I can better and/or re-state the question. Thanks for making an effort, at any rate.
  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 of a Characteristics based skill (i.e. INT based). I could see a true Background skill being just 2 CP to opt-in; +1 per 1 CP thereafter. Finally, the base roll is said to be 11-; which if you work out the math, is the same as saying INT-based (or whatever the Characteristic is). If you take the base INT, what is it, 10, and calculate it out, 9+10/5, you end up with, uh-oh-eee! 11-! (non-common core calculation... ). This sort of allusion is mentioned in a couple other places; i.e. the actual calculation is masked by a hard-number. This is where my GM discretion kicks in, but I thought I'd posit the scenario to the forums. If I can generally summarize, it's all about the roll, base cost, cost per level, and whether (probably) that was based on a Characteristic. Thank ye...
  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...