AoD combat screen - now with grid!

[deus]

How about compensating for lost movement in form of bonus AP and a modified move area. For example, I move 2 AP left and 2 AP up for a total of 4 AP. Since the straight line distance is ~3, I get 1 AP back. If there was an enemy or obstacle in the way, the path would go around the obstacle in either system so the AP cost would obviously be 4, assuming enemies take up 1 square AP in both systems.

The modified area would look something like this:

OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO

The blue O's are the normal movement area. The red O's are "extra" squares gained from recalculating AP as above. A system like this is more complicated to implement, but has the advantages of a grid while not penalizing movement.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Cutting diagonal movement's distance in a half isn't an unbreakable law. IMO, it's not a serious enough reason to refuse from grid-based system, which gives so many advantages. So, do you have any thoughts about fixing that "frustrating and nonsensical" problem? Does anyone else consider it frustrating? Speak your mind, people, good ideas are always appreciated.

I recall a space game that used a grid system that allowed you to move directly to a diagonal square. Basically they used an AP system like yours except instead of only having 5-10 AP points they had 50-100 AP points. To move up or down or left or right costed 10 AP points while moving diagonally costed 14 (or 15) AP points. This made your ships reach more rounded and more realistic while still preserving the grid structure to plan out your attacks. The only other alternative I can think of using is hexes which I wouldn't mind seeing again in games .

In grid systems all that happens is if your movement gets rounded down (e.g. for diagonals) then you can't even move a portion of a square. That seems far less precise to me.

You will still have rounding errors if you move your character half an AP point. It is also less precise because you could move 4 AP points and either be able to attack the enemy or not, depending on just how far you can stretch that last AP to get that enemy within your attack radius. I don't have to worry about this in a grid based system. There I am either within reach of a bad guy or I am not and not enough "pixel hunting" to find that sweet spot will help me.

In short, grid based 4TW.

 

[AnalogKid]

In grid systems all that happens is if your movement gets rounded down (e.g. for diagonals) then you can't even move a portion of a square. That seems far less precise to me.

You will still have rounding errors if you move your character half an AP point. It is also less precise because you could move 4 AP points and either be able to attack the enemy or not, depending on just how far you can stretch that last AP to get that enemy within your attack radius. I don't have to worry about this in a grid based system. There I am either within reach of a bad guy or I am not and not enough "pixel hunting" to find that sweet spot will help me.

I'm not sure I understood you, but let me take a crack at it...

Of course rounding errors will always exist due to discreet screen displays, but aren't teeny-tiny rounding errors better than big-ass rounding errors?

I can move 4AP and not be able to hit the bad guy in a grid-based system as well, just move to the wrong grid along the way! What you're suggesting is that it's easier to get it right in a grid based system, which I agree with, but it's also easier to flip a coin and see who wins! Simple generally eliminates options, and in this case I think grids specifically eliminate all options that involve positioning your avatar at non-grid locations. As one simple example, say a doorway is 2 squares wide. Why the hell can't I stand in the middle of the doorway and not allow anyone by me! Because the grid won't allow me to make that tactical choice.

I agree that feet-path pixel searching for the right mouse location that will turn red and allow me to attack would suck. That's why I recommend pre-calculating the (nearly continuous) options and displaying all options at one time. Allow quick "undo" for the case of an accidental mis-click (I hated that there was no undo in R:TW!). It seems like any remaining case that is so borderline would be an automatic "fuck you! try it next turn." in a grid-based system, so instead of worrying about all the tiny marginal cases that you can't quite eek out, think of all the grossly important cases that distance-based allows! As an example, think of any diagonal-ish move in a grid base. If it's near the edge of your movement radius, you'd very clearly and quickly see that you can't get there, even though you should be able to. With a circular movement ring and no grids, you would have in many cases up to a full 1/2 square equivalent of extra movement (or more if movement is simply truncated), which wouldn't require any pixel hunting at all. Again, only the extreme cases would be tricky, and those cases would be situations where the grid system screws you anyway.

As for hexes, I think that with rectilinear building construction, they just don't work very well. If everything were outdoors it wouldn't bother me, but I'd almost rather have a square grid with movement corrections like others have mentioned.

Maybe doing things right without grids will just take too long. If that's so, then go ahead and take the small evil of limited positioning in order to allow more complex gameplay. The thing is, there's just nothing about grids that can't be done better with a distance-based system, given enough time to program!

How about micro-grids? Use the grid approach but make it so that each character takes up a 5x5 grid block (or something like that). Then the discreet grid movements wouldn't be so bad and things like not being able to stand in the middle of a hallway or door wouldn't be a limitation.

 

[puppyonastik]

We can try that. Thanks for caring and for finally joining us.

No problem, and thank you for the welcome.

 

[Jason]

Me like grid. Stick with it.

 

[EEVIAC]

Here is my take on it: in TB grid rulez. Distance-based systems aren't precise enough, they are more automated, more "let us handle it for you, and don't worry about it" systems.

It's not inherently more or less precise, it just depends on the level of detail used. I can't see much of a difference between a small-pool AP system (10 AP per turn or thereabouts) and an action based system like d20. 1 AP per square moved (each square being roughly equivalent to 5 feet) is no different from an action based system where the character can freely move a number of feet up to his speed (in multiples of five.) You could increase the pool of AP to 50 and have each AP account for an actual foot of movement, just like you could take away the "multiples of five" restriction from an action system and let the player move in actual foot increments.

I think that kind of system is redundant, though. Large pools of AP allow for greater complexity and tactical depth (you can adjust AP movement over different terrain, apply AP wound penalties, etc) but it's a pain in the arse to actually play. I'd rather play ToEE than Silent Storm or JA2. Even though the tactical positioning is more simplistic, there are a lot more options once you get to the business end of an attack turn.

That said, since you've been set on AP's from the start (and are probably unwilling to rewrite the character system to accomodate an action system,) grids and AP's go hand in glove. I was never overly fond of the ornate circle of flames.

 

[Nick]

Cutting diagonal movement's distance in a half isn't an unbreakable law. IMO, it's not a serious enough reason to refuse from grid-based system, which gives so many advantages. So, do you have any thoughts about fixing that "frustrating and nonsensical" problem? Does anyone else consider it frustrating? Speak your mind, people, good ideas are always appreciated.

I recall a space game that used a grid system that allowed you to move directly to a diagonal square. Basically they used an AP system like yours except instead of only having 5-10 AP points they had 50-100 AP points. To move up or down or left or right costed 10 AP points while moving diagonally costed 14 (or 15) AP points. This made your ships reach more rounded and more realistic while still preserving the grid structure to plan out your attacks.

That's the way out, of course, as our pathfinding does it anyway (h/v movement cost = 10 points, diagonal = 14 *).
On the other hand, going that way breaks the "magical" balance (1 tile = 1 AP).
The obvious way out is to have 1 AP cost for any movement, doesn't matter if it is diagonal or not. But I'm not sure if it will work good, as physical distance between diagonal tiles' centers remains bigger anyway.

* To avoid possible misunderstandings: I don't mean APs here, those are just abstract values for comparing physical distances between straight and diagonal tiles.

 

[Vidder]

love the grid.
makes me want to play it NOW!

 

[FrancoTAU]

I dig the grids much more than the old system. I second the guys who are saying it should be a bit more subtle i.e. just have colored outlines instead of filled in boxes.

Is there AP penalites/bonuses depending on terrain like shallow water or going upward/downward on hills?

 

[Vault Dweller]

How are distance based systems less precise? In grid systems all that happens is if your movement gets rounded down (e.g. for diagonals) then you can't even move a portion of a square. That seems far less precise to me.

Maybe precise was a wrong word, how about "clear"? Is there a difference between travelling 5.2 meters and 5.7? No, not really. If you were playing such a game, you'd have to pixel-hunt with your cursor to see the maximum distance 5AP, for example, can buy you.

How about looking at something like Rome:Total War's movement options, where it calculates all the terrain penalties for you and then simply displays a shaded cloud of possible movmenet area?

It's a fine game, but nothing beats good ol' chess in terms of strategy and tactics.

As for the tactical depth created by allowing different weapons to reach farther, why doesn't that exist in a distance-based system? You'd just have to let polearms (for example) have a longer attack radius than shorter weapons. Again, you'd increase tactical options by allowing a whole range of subtle differences between weapons instead of just "1 square" and "2 square" categories.

We've had that (different attack radius), but in melee fights (ranged characters won't care about the grid or distance anyway) the combatants move in to be within the striking distance so any regular attack radius becomes useless very quickly. That's where grid-based rules start to shine. Same with chess. Not that I'm trying to compare AoD to chess, I'm simply pointing out strong sides of grid-based systems, of which chess is the prime example.

 

[Vault Dweller]

hexagons hexagons hexagons hexagons

please, please, please - they get rid of so much of the diagonal wonkiness.

Won't work very well with the buildings

A system like this is more complicated to implement, but has the advantages of a grid while not penalizing movement.

Your idea has merits, but I don't really want to start anything new and complex at this point without having enough time to test it properly. Releasing the game in the summer is my first and only priority, and there's still trackload of old stuff to (re)do.

You will still have rounding errors if you move your character half an AP point. It is also less precise because you could move 4 AP points and either be able to attack the enemy or not, depending on just how far you can stretch that last AP to get that enemy within your attack radius. I don't have to worry about this in a grid based system. There I am either within reach of a bad guy or I am not and not enough "pixel hunting" to find that sweet spot will help me.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's not inherently more or less precise, it just depends on the level of detail used.

I can agree with that

I'd rather play ToEE than Silent Storm or JA2. Even though the tactical positioning is more simplistic, there are a lot more options once you get to the business end of an attack turn.

Completely agree.

That said, since you've been set on AP's from the start (and are probably unwilling to rewrite the character system to accomodate an action system,) grids and AP's go hand in glove. I was never overly fond of the ornate circle of flames.

That's the best argument in favour of grids. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

How is the grid gonna deal with uneven or forested terrain (if there is such a thing)?

 

[obediah]

hexagons hexagons hexagons hexagons

please, please, please - they get rid of so much of the diagonal wonkiness.

Won't work very well with the buildings

But it would work better for barstools.

I guess I don't like hexes so much because you fix the diagonal problem, but lose x or y in the process. Octagons all the way! No diagonal or cardinal wonkiness, and it works much better than in buildings - none of the 3 people can fit in the hallway here, but only 2 here.

I think a goal of the system should be to allow you to exploit the situation without the distraction of exploits in the system. There are plenty of good combat systems that embrace the glitches in their abstractoin too add a level of strategy that is puzzle-like - but I think this is ultimately distracting in a single-player rpg.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How is the grid gonna deal with uneven or forested terrain (if there is such a thing)?

There is such a thing, and there are natural obstacles like those tents, for example. The grid is displayed but unpassable terrain is marked differently to show that you can't move there, and would be taken into consideration by the pathfinding algorithm.

Missed this question:

Is there AP penalites/bonuses depending on terrain like shallow water or going upward/downward on hills?

We are considering that, but that could be a problem in a low AP system. The only solution is to double the AP cost for certain areas (uphill, river, ruins, etc), but that may significantly reduce movement for slow fighters. If you have 6AP and want to move a bit and then attack, doubling the cost could be a problem.

 

[AnalogKid]

I'd rather play ToEE than Silent Storm or JA2. Even though the tactical positioning is more simplistic, there are a lot more options once you get to the business end of an attack turn.

Completely agree.

Wow, this is just so foreign to me I can't comprehend it, but so be it.

I guess for me the problem is that RPGs are trying to protray "real" life to the extent practical. Whatever a game's rules are, I will accept them and work with them (so chess's grid doesn't bother me in the least, nor does BloodBowl's grid). But in a game that's trying to be "realistic" (complex?) enough to model my ability to converse with other people (just one example), not being able to move where I want is jarring!

So how about just subdividng the grid once? Invent "1/2 squares" so at least the most obvious artificial restrictions are removed. In other words, make characters occupy 2x2 grids without needing to worry about rotating them or anything like that. In any case, it sounds like grids it is, so please make it good grids, if you'd be so kind...

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

How is the grid gonna deal with uneven or forested terrain (if there is such a thing)?

There is such a thing, and there are natural obstacles like those tents, for example. The grid is displayed but unpassable terrain is marked differently to show that you can't move there, and would be taken into consideration by the pathfinding algorithm.

Missed this question:

Is there AP penalites/bonuses depending on terrain like shallow water or going upward/downward on hills?

We are considering that, but that could be a problem in a low AP system. The only solution is to double the AP cost for certain areas (uphill, river, ruins, etc), but that may significantly reduce movement for slow fighters. If you have 6AP and want to move a bit and then attack, doubling the cost could be a problem.

I was more thinking about when the terrain slopes. Is the grid wrapped over it or projected from the top? Does uphill -downhill influence player movement? Just curious.

 

[Whipporowill]

I think the grid could do with a little more transparency - or maybe do it fully translucent apart from the borders, and then plot the course in colour before movement.

Otherwise... I'll have to agree with the big f'in ? about why movement diagonally is 2 squares in comparsion.

 

[Human Shield]

Make diagonal movement cost 1.5 AP rounded down and show another tile screen.

And whatever you do don't animated diagonal commands as a wiggle walk up and down.

 

[Shagnak]

On the one hand I like it - it makes the combat seem more tactical; but on the other hand it makes it look too...clinical, I guess.

Tactics vs ... don't even know what you traded tactics for, you, tactics-hater, you

Well, I wasn't suggesting you had to!

One was a gameplay consideration, the other an aesthetic consideration. The grid looks like something I would see in a clinical sci-fi game with gleaming white straight-edged corridors, and dudes in white plastic armour defending the halls of a certain space station.

It doesn't matter, sounds like you're sold.

Even something as simple as limiting short reach weapons to straight squares, while allowing longer reach weapons to hit the diagonal squares adds a bit of tactical depth.

And also makes me go "WTF!?".
Please don't do something like this. If I wanted to play a boardgame like chess (or whatever), then that is what I would do.

If you do this sort of thing for your combat, then I would be all crybaby, wondering why the fuck I can't hit the mother that is standing off-centre for me - oh that's right! I have a short weapon!

There is a balance between tactical and "realism", and I think this sort of thing goes over the line - for me at any rate.

EDIT:
For what it's worth, I would prefer hexes. Despite the wibbly wobbly movement in one axis.

 

[Psilon]

Hexes would be nice.

Besides, the engine's continuous under the hood, unless you guys are seriously mistreating the Torque base. As long as you don't do things like boobytrap individual tiles/hexes, you can use the final location for positioning/reach/whatever and just walk in a straight line to the target hex. No wibble-wobble.

 

[RGE]

1.5 APs for moving diagonally sounds nice, wichever way that would be accomplished, and the red/blue combo looks hideous. I'd prefer to see black grid lines with grey or white highlights. Kind of like the gridlines in Civ II. Red and blue does not bring me the 'ancient world' vibes.

 

[Slylandro]

Do the grid boxes have to be filled in with color? It seems sort of distracting. Why not just have grids whose lines are colored, but aren't actually filled in with blue/red? Wouldn't it look better? In the end it's probably just trivial though; good screens I think. I am new here, when did you start this project? Do you have a webpage for this?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Make diagonal movement cost 1.5 AP rounded down

So, let's say you have 8 APs, you move diagonally. How many APs do you have left for combat? 6.5? Well, the .5 is useless, so effectively it means that the cost is 2. If it's 7, it means that the cost is 1, and that just fucks up the grid.

I'd prefer to see black grid lines with grey or white highlights. Kind of like the gridlines in Civ II. Red and blue does not bring me the 'ancient world' vibes.

Hmm, looks like everyone uniformly agrees that red and blue are just wrong and have no place in an RPG. We'll see what we can do.

Do the grid boxes have to be filled in with color? It seems sort of distracting. Why not just have grids whose lines are colored, but aren't actually filled in with blue/red? Wouldn't it look better?

It would be harder to show both the movement range and the attack range. Don't forget that those could be reversed, i.e. a bowman would have a much larger attack range than his movement range.

I am new here, when did you start this project?

Mar 2004; the project started as a 2D game (see early screens), but we switched to 3D this summer, using Torque engine.

Do you have a webpage for this?

It's coming. This forum gives me everything I need, so having a proper website was never a priority. Besides, since we are still defining things (like grid vs distance, animation, etc), I'd rather have a website when these things are finalized.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'd rather play ToEE than Silent Storm or JA2. Even though the tactical positioning is more simplistic, there are a lot more options once you get to the business end of an attack turn.

Completely agree.

Wow, this is just so foreign to me I can't comprehend it, but so be it.

Huh? What's foreign about it? What you wrote after doesn't really explain that. Neither of those games had grid...

But in a game that's trying to be "realistic" (complex?) enough to model my ability to converse with other people (just one example), not being able to move where I want is jarring!

I dislike realism in games, and prefer concepts. Talking to other people in an RPG I see not as an ability to communicate in a realistic manner (only an emergent dialogue system would be able to pull that off, imo), but as a way to add more flavor to gameworld, story, quests, characters, etc; and as an option to handle things in a non-combat manner.

In any case, it sounds like grids it is, so please make it good grids, if you'd be so kind...

Can't promise, but we'll consider it.