AoD combat screen - now with grid!

[dojoteef]

Hexes, hexes, hexes, hexes!!!!!!

 

[Vault Dweller]

I like it. Makes me remember Shining Force and Fire Emblem games. But iInstead of blue, I would use a transparent colour (like Shining Force), which only highlights (makes brighter) the squares where the PC can move. Add a read hue to that, for the attack range squares.

We'll tweak the colors.

It would be less intrusive (if that word existes in english) .

It does exist.

BTW, I presume you can attack diagonally, right?

Yep

 

[galsiah]

If this is now a dead issue, then just ignore my ramblings.

First, generally I prefer the grid.
Second, what is wrong with taking 2 action points to go straight and 3 for a diagonal? With all the anti-munchkinism at the codex I would have thought that being able to count to 3 wasn't too big an ask for RPG players. Or is VD perhaps trying to remove all that annoying "counting" from RPGs? In UFO it took 4 points to go straight and 6 to go diagonally - I don't reacall any public outcry.

The other main question I have is whether the possible movement of enemies will be visible. Did I miss the answer to this earlier? If there is no way to see how far an enemy will be able to move, the combat won't be very tactical in any case.

 

[Kamaz]

Decorate with what? Flowers and naked maidens?

Nah, I meant more like some simple ornaments - wine leaves partially transparent siluettes of wine leaves or smth. Why not? That would add that roman-like civilization feeling. Now it looks plainly out of time and place.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Second, what is wrong with taking 2 action points to go straight and 3 for a diagonal?

That would work, of course, but that would require a complete reworking of the AP system and balance. The avg. number of points is 8. Spending 2-3 points per move is too much. That would require a system with 15-20 APs and I dislike them - that was the weakest point of Silent Storm.

Or is VD perhaps trying to remove all that annoying "counting" from RPGs?

Yeah, that's the one.

The other main question I have is whether the possible movement of enemies will be visible.

Yes. You move your mouse over an enemy and see his attack/movement range.

 

[galsiah]

That would require a system with 15-20 APs and I dislike them - that was the weakest point of Silent Storm.

If that was the weakest point of SS, I should buy it .
Clearly you must do what you think is best, but I really don't see how doubling everyone's APs to around 15-20 and doubling the other AP costs is that harmful. It would seem very odd to me to have my character move 1.4 times as fast diagonally, as straight. Equally, it would seem pretty odd not to be able to move diagonally. Having 15-20 APs seems no less natural to me than having 8.
I can't see the downside, other than the requirement that people know how to multiply by 3. Is that really too hard / distracting? The player wouldn't even have to do this much in any case, since he is shown how far he can move, and the amount of points it'll take to get there.

Is the problem that he'll sometimes end up with 1 AP, and nothing to do with it (since you'd have doubled the costs of other actions)? Is that a problem?

It just seems an odd decision to me.

Yes. You move your mouse over an enemy and see his attack/movement range.

Good to know.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Clearly you must do what you think is best, but I really don't see how doubling everyone's APs to around 15-20 and doubling the other AP costs is that harmful.

I didn't say harmful. It's more of a personal preference. I dislike tons of APs, HPs, damage points, etc. It's more intuitive with smaller numbers. Breaking down 9 APs to see what you can do with it (3 x 3, 5+4, 6+3, 4+3+2, etc) is much easier than breaking down 18. It has nothing to do with one's ability to add numbers, it's about convenience.

It would seem very odd to me to have my character move 1.4 times as fast diagonally, as straight. Equally, it would seem pretty odd not to be able to move diagonally.

That I agree with.

Is the problem that he'll sometimes end up with 1 AP, and nothing to do with it (since you'd have doubled the costs of other actions)? Is that a problem?

No, that could happen even with the current setup.

 

[Quigs]

Seeing the grid makes me think "Huh, crappy PC port of the old Sega Shining series, or mayb even Gladius."

Those were both far more of a strategy game then an rpg.

dont look in the well.

 

[galsiah]

...It's more of a personal preference...It's more intuitive with smaller numbers.

I can see that, but I still think it's the lesser of three evils.

That I agree with.

But if you have 1AP on diagonal and straight moves, you are covering 1.4 times the distance in the same time over the diagonal, therefore going 1.4 times as fast - this would seem very odd to me. Your other choices are to prevent diagonal movement, or to go with e.g. 3 for diagonal, 2 for straight.

If you're using a square grid, having the same movement cost over diagonals as over rows / columns makes it seem unreal to me - more like chess than an RPG.
I can see the attraction of having very low AP totals, but I don't think it's worth the loss of credibility.

As an example, take the following situation: you are approached by two bandits, one from the North East, one from the South West, so that the three of you form a straight line. You are as fast as they are, and for some reason you want to get away before engaging them (to a building / better terrain / allies / ...). In reality, running North West or South East would allow you to get away - at least temporarily. If diagonals are 1AP, running NW or SE will allow both the bandits to engage you.
Similarly, if no diagonal movement is allowed, there will be many situations where you should not be able to escape, but will be able to in the game.

 

[MichiK]

Wow, my first post on the AoD forum!

Anyway, movement and APs are critical issues in a tactical RPG (with combat mechanics being the third), so I think its totally worth doing whatever is neccessary to make this part work well.

Hexes are definitely useful, but the don't actually solve the problem, they just hide it a little better... you can still be in the situation where you need to move in a 7th or 8th direction and then you have the same problem as the diagonals with squares, but worse.

Not allowing diagonal movement or diagonal attacks (ranged).... take a look at the first Arkania game and remind yourself how annoying that was.

I would allow a higher number of APs to allow for more flexibilty with the diagnol movement.

Keep the grid tho, no matter what... that really helps.

 

[galsiah]

Hexes are definitely useful, but the don't actually solve the problem, they just hide it a little better...

Well they don't solve all problems, but they do solve one - not just hide it. Going from squares to hexes is not going from 4 (or 8) to 6, it's going from a situation where adjacent tile pairs are not all equivalent to one where they are. This extra symmetry completely solves any problem stemming from the diagonal / column distinction, since it removes the distinction - each move can cost 1 AP, and you have complete accuracy (for 1 tile moves). Complete accuracy with squares is impossible - you can use 3:2, 14:10, ... but you can't get (2^0.5):1.
As you rightly say, there will still always be inaccuracies over more than one tile (worse than with squares, if squares have a good 1 tile approximation). The extra symmetry is definitely useful though, and feels more natural in one sense: when you move tiles you always do the same thing - there is no notion of a diagonal move being different, since only one movement type exists.

Given that the buildings use squares though, hexes wouldn't really fit.

I'd certainly rather sacrifice a bit of AP easy intuition for extra versatility / accuracy. I'm not suggesting 180AP, but I don't see a problem with 15 or 20. Personally I find 6+6+4 = 16 pretty much as simple and clear as 3+3+2 = 8. I can't see such "calculations" distracting me from the game. Maybe not everyone would feel that way though (??).

 

[denizsi]

I have no idea how would this translate into coding but I think instead of a static grid system, a dynamic one which changes according to the situation ( stats, AP, enemy ) would be a lot better, and *might* solve problem better than both square and hex based grids.

What I mean by dynamic? First step is the initial action in combat. No matter what direction, player will have a totally straight path to the exact point he wants to go as far as (s)he can go, instead of having to pick a fixed tile to move onto. There will be grids again, but only in a sraight line, ie. player wants to proceed 48º ( just 3º past little past North-East ) ? OK, he will be traveling through a straight grid at 48º, and he will be consuming AP on that grid.

I said the first step is the initial action. Think of it like this: The first time the player decides to move in a direction, that will cost him a base of X APs, and an addition of Y APs depending on how far he wants to go. So, he will consume X+Y points the first time he will move.

Imagine, player moved 3 tiles at 48º, and he still has APs left. Now if he wants to keep moving, he has 2 options now: keep moving in the same direction ( perhaps with a tolerance of +5º -5º difference to prevent an unnecessary strictness, and to simulate maneuvering during movement) -let's say 3 tiles again,, which will cost him Y only, because he was moving already. Or he can change his direction, which will cost him another X+Y. Again, a gridh path will show up straight to the point he wants to go. No world grid.

Additionally, the +5º -5º tolerance I mentioned above could even be based on the AGI or DEX or whatever you have, so a character with higher AGI/DEX can also make better maneuver during movement.

Finally, if player still has APs left after he has moved, he can choose to "end" his movement to better focus for a possible attack against the enemy.

What do you think?