Wasteland Wasteland 2 Pre-Release Discussion Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Infinitron]

So phase based?

No thanks.

Not phase based. It's pretty much like games like Fallout, except all actions play out simultaneously.

That's what phase-based means bro.

 

[Athelas]

I thought phase based meant players and enemies all choose their actions during the same phase. That's not what I was talking about.

 

[tuluse]

I thought phase based meant players and enemies all choose their actions during the same phase. That's not what I was talking about.

Phased based means actions take place in phases. You could theoretically take Fallout and make a moving phase and shooting phase, where each phase played out in a turn based fashion. But colloquially on the 'dex, we use it to mean planning actions -> actions happening simultaneously.

How would all actions play out simultaneously, if you didn't have all the orders put in? Do you just mean what ToEE did where it would just show all enemy actions at the same time, even though the underlying system was 3E turn based?

 

[valcik]

What about just standing in the open, all Mad Max-like (or Fallout-like), and aim a shot at someone's leg?

According to manual, there's some basic cover system even in the original Fallout:

Cover is considered as any obstacle between you and your target. Other people, barrels to duck behind, trees, and walls are all
considered cover. Cover will modify the to hit chance as a negative penalty. You will never have a better chance to hit your target if
there is cover between you and it. The amount of the penalty depends on the cover. A barrel may be very little, another person a
little more, and a wall may have a really big modifier.

 

[felipepepe]

As far as I know, Fallout's cover system was this:
Barrel: 0% penalty.
Wall: 100% penalty.

 

[Athelas]

How would all actions play out simultaneously, if you didn't have all the orders put in?

Here's a good example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaolOuJ8sT0&t=86m

Notice how much depth and strategy is added by letting everything play out simultaneously? You can move out of the way of an incoming attack, you can intercept an enemy who's charging towards your party member, you can exhaust yourself if you run too far away, etc.

 

[tuluse]

So you want interrupts then? Xcom and JA2 had those.

 

[Excidium]

Jesus why are people always so confused by what phase-based means. Phase based simply means planning and resolution occur in separated stages as opposed to actions being resolved as they are chosen.

Doesn't have anything to do with things being resolved simultaneously or not, because that can happen in your regular turn-based combat too.

As far as I know, Fallout's cover system was this:
Barrel: 0% penalty.
Wall: 100% penalty.

You also count as 100% cover on Ian's turn.

 

[Darkzone]

I wanted to apologize for stressing your nerves last week. But from my view it was necessary work for the concessions of the last update. Those were the only gain that we could get.

 

[I_am_Ian]

You are forgive, my friend! We understand the black eyes injury deleted the calmness. Your knowledge is appreciate and you are extremely educate.

 

[shihonage]

Darkzone and i_am_weasel at Codex.

Squares, when the hexagons fell.

I_am_Ian, with arms open.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

I actually like what inxile has planned regarding grids. But path-finding and AI...wont that be a bitch? No one (who is not ) expects anything near JA2. But the talky parts shouldn't suffer because of smoother animations and what not. if they manage to implement diagonal movement (1.5 vs 1.41 Ap is pretty good) it can be quite good. But as they seemed to indicate terrain will affect Ap cost. So what will their AP model be? Inflate AP/cost like Silent Storm? (trying it now and it is kicking my ass...probably because I am trying to play it like FO). what will be the overall expected design ramifications of this?

 

[imweasel]

I wanted to apologize for stressing your nerves last week. But from my view it was necessary work for the concessions of the last update. Those were the only gain that we could get.

Really? I found your nagging rather contra-productive; you never said that diagonal movement on a square grid is fine, you actually just shunned it (including my examples with diagonal movement). But no worries, I forgive you. Just don't expect me to treat you nice if you attack me on a personal level.

Here, I made this for you:

Spoiler

Look familiar? This is the maximum possible movement for 5 AP in WL2 according to the last update (with 1.5 AP for diagonal movement). Why did they choose 1.5 AP for diagonal movement? Well, look at the circle, then you know why (i.e. 1.41 for diagonal movement).

Hmmm, it has a circular shape. Hmmmmmm......... Hmmmmmm....... Hmmmmmmm....

(I know, my pastel colored grid ain't purdy)

 

[Darkzone]

Chaotic_Heretic
For pathplanning it is no problem at all. You simply add 4 additional edges (connections of fields) with the coresponding costs for the transition to the nodes (representing a field) of the graph. The A* will have no problem with it.
To the A.I. there i have to giggle, because of the word A.I, so let us call it better an scripted Agent or automated Agent or simply Agent.
The necessary set of rules of the Agent have to be raised, and that will result in more cases and evaluations, but currently i cannot give any estimation on how high that would be.
To the 1.5 vs 1.41 this will take very long to explain, but as long the AP stays below 10 for only diagonal movement no one will see the difference, and the distortion will be only for the diagonal movement above the AP 16 result in one AP difference.
In the official Wastland 2 forum from InXile, in the thread Update 35 paradox-fi shows with a simple examply why it is not so important.

imweasel
Before i make any statement about what you have writen, let me say the following:
I was the first one to complain about the lacking of the diagonal movement.
I was the first one to suggest at least the cost of 1.5 for the transitions. (Why i did this you will not understand.)
The only thing that i have ever said is that the hexes are better then the squares with only the horizontal and vertical movement, and even explicit said that squares with the diagonal movement are better than the hexes.
You can easy verify this if you look into the official Wasteland 2 forum, at the Update 34.

To answer your post:
Really? I found your nagging rather contra-productive; (What you belive is not really important.)

you never said that diagonal movement on a square grid is fine, you actually just shunned it
(No. You may think this only because we do not speak the same language, and this is not about english.)

(including my examples with diagonal movement).
(What you do not understand is that it is not so simple, like you think it is.)
But no worries, I forgive you. Just don't expect me to treat you nice if you attack me on a personal level.

Now to the language that you do not speak, this is the language of mathematics (geometry, graph theory, analysis) and computing science (algorithmic).
That is why you do not understand why and what i say. HiddenX knew exactly, what i mean, because he speaks this same language.
It seems HiddenX has studied the computer science like me, but you didn't. I would never allow myself to lecture a Mozart or somebody who has studied music how to play an instrument or about the harmonies or dispute about music with such a person. But you think you can.
The the reachability graph changes according to the obstacles and terrain factors, only in a empty plane you can approximate a circle, but with a square tessalation you will never reach it. And this is only one explizit case of all the endless / infinite possibilities.
Yes the granulation has some influece on the approximation to the circle. And you can also approximate an circle with the hex tessalation.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Darkzone

Googled all those terms. You sure know your stuff.
So the main reason they chose squares over hexes wasnt the simplicity in pathfinding/ai... but cause levels weren't made with hexes in mind.
And iamweasel is a Don't get over his dumbfuckery. He cannot into rational arguments and explanations.

 

[imweasel]

First a square grid with diagonal movement is bad (a game without hexes is shit or something).... and now it's fine after the update. Even with it's circular shape (i.e. 1.5 for diagonal movement). Have I been talking about anything else? Nope.

But retards are gonna retard, especially the butthurt whiners on the codex.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Waah, waah, whiners everywhere, let me make every post about them, that makes me totally better than them and totally not butthurt for being proven an idiot repeatedly.

Fucking kids let loose on the internet.

 

[Darkzone]

So the main reason they chose squares over hexes wasnt the simplicity in pathfinding/ai...

Yes.

but cause levels weren't made with hexes in mind.

Hmm i don't know or better said i would not bet on it. We always go the other way around, we derive the square grid out form a picture or a map (and this is nearly always possible). So i don't really buy into this explanation, but it is not that i think that this is a lie. I simply have never done this with the hex tessalation, always only with the square tessalation, because it is more simple, and there are nice algorithms to achieve this.

But an other question: how do i Brofist posts? I am lazy sometimes and do not want to search the explanation for this.

 

[Temaperacl]

So the main reason they chose squares over hexes wasnt the simplicity in pathfinding/ai...

Yes.

but cause levels weren't made with hexes in mind.

Hmm i don't know or better said i would not bet on it. We always go the other way around, we derive the square grid out form a picture or a map (and this is nearly always possible). So i don't really buy into this explanation, but it is not that i think that this is a lie. I simply have never done this with the hex tessalation, always only with the square tessalation, because it is more simple, and there are nice algorithms to achieve this.

Different requirements, maybe different backgrounds.

That is, grids in games have certain regularity and size constraints if they are to be used by the user that you (may) not have to consider in your work. Constraints (on output) generally make things harder. It is possible that there wasn't anyone with the skills to come to an appropriate hex solution or that such a solution would place additional burden on other level design considerations. It is also possible that there was no appropriate hex tiling that met all the constraints they had. Additionally, coming up with a solution, especially an elegant solution can take resources (that is, man-hours). For a project with a limited budget, management of those resources is important - especially if a "good enough" solution has already been identified.

But an other question: how do i Brofist posts? I am lazy sometimes and do not want to search the explanation for this.

There is a "Brofist" option on the post. May not be available until you have been here for a certain duration / postcount / something.

I was the first one to suggest at least the cost of 1.5 for the transitions. (Why i did this you will not understand.)

Incorrect - Jim The Dinosaur suggested it before you made your first post. And for anyone familiar with wargames (or basic geometry), it was obvious from the first picture imweasel posted. If you look back at your posts and imweasel's, it appears you are sometimes arguing about something that imweasel isn't claiming and sometimes making assumptions about the system proposed.

Conceptually, I actually kind of like the idea of using a square grid for this game, but I haven't gotten around to actually watching any of the videos or pay much attention to the game news since early August, so I haven't actually watched it in game yet.

 

[drae]

There is a "Brofist" option on the post. May not be available until you have been here for a certain duration / postcount / something.

I believe your account needs to be older than 12 months old.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

weasel said that movement costs should be closely proportional to the distance travelled, regardless of direction. This was the entire point of squarecirclegate, which was a pic I found prudent because the main argument in favour of hexes were that they made the apspent/travel ratio more consistent. I really, really don't get how anything he said was controversial in the least o_O


You could always argue that 1.5 and 1.41 movement costs makes math more cumbersome and AP counter ought to be only natural numbers or something but that never came up so


Edit: Actually I might have misrepresented imweasels point a bit, since the discussion is so long. But the circle represents all the points which are equally far from point A, so clearly any movement function that aims to have a consistent AP/movement ratio should strive to be as close to the circle as possible, isn't that what you tried to show...?

 

[shihonage]

It never came up because it's solved by having 3 AP for diagonal, 2 AP for normal, movement.

 

[Gord]

I thought they said that each char will use AP depending on their stats (in the end it will be rounded to the nearest? number, afaik), but diagonal movement costs 1.5x as much.

 

[shihonage]

Yeah they did. I thought your inquiry was not game-specific.

I brought this up earlier - having "variable spending" of AP on walking is going to generate fractions, which is a terrible way to go. Hopefully they're not actually going to proceed with that.

 

[Gord]

It may indeed create some strangeness, depending on how they (internally) deal with fractions and the resulting AP display:
Are AP deducted according to the displayed natural numbers or will fractions be stored internally? Can I "lose" AP through "unlucky" rounding?
OTOH, for small total AP numbers, it's probably the easiest way of having a speed attribute influence movement significantly and smoothly (while e.g. decoupling it from the total AP pool that is also used for stuff like shooting).