Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Announcements & media coverage pertaining to the Wasteland series. Only moderators & inXile can make new threads on this forum.

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3715
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Gizmo » September 29th, 2013, 11:18 pm

Blacky wrote:
Gizmo wrote:In innumerable RPGs the wizard [aka the artillery unit] is vulnerable and near helpless in close melee combat ~it's a function of the game design
Mostly because of incredible bad game design...
Hardly... It's deliberate balancing (and something I want; I've no interest a ranger simulator, I want a tactical turn based combat game with double edged rules that challenges me to win it). I could not care less than I do about strict adherence to real life plausible action ~even in context with wizard spells... I want a strictly defines rule set.

Look no further than Disciples 2; I can play that game Sun-down to Sun-down. I have to rip myself away from it ~~and the combatants don't even move from their positions; their melee attacks happen from across the map and don't connect with their target ~~so what? The game is brutally addictive TB strategy... And strictly speaking, though quite different it's not too dissimilar from the combat in Wasteland 1; which would have been fine by me, though I think the WL2 combat looks like great fun.
In a simulation game ...
There is no such thing. [eh... except maybe the god games.]
There is a profound need for believability. It may be a land of magic, or a stellar system in a distant future, or whatever. But internal coherence is paramount.
Internal coherence is indeed paramount, as is the story presented; but as far as the combat mechanics go... it could be a collectable card game for all I [generally] care; as abstracted as they care to make it; so long as it's challenging and the rules fair, and the AI adheres to them.

If they decided (for game sake) to not allow heavy weapons specialists to learn HtH, espionage skills, or for that matter to carry a side arm back-up piece ~because they wanted them to be inherently vulnerable... Even though in real life they of course would carry one.. I would have no qualms or issues with that ~because it's to further their game rules. Rules always trump the fiction ~or it turns out to be mediocre gameplay at best IMO.
Last edited by Gizmo on September 29th, 2013, 11:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Valar_Omega
Scholar
Posts: 165
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 7:53 am

Re: About stances

Post by Valar_Omega » September 29th, 2013, 11:21 pm

Blacky wrote:About stances:

One thing I would like to see first is crawling. I mean, stances as a mobile soft cover, a way to steady your shot, etc. that's all good but it's far from critical. If the dev team after reviewing it thinks it's too much work, I can live with it.

However, crawling seems much more important. It's critical to do recon, and plan&execute ambushes. And it's by far the easier stance to implement, since there's much less AI to do with it.
Actually on the matter of doing recon and ambushes a prone stance would overlap with the move silently skill(maybe perception as well). Although everyone can go prone, only character you put the points into can move silent. FI think it fits better for a game that empathizes the RPG aspects. Also the problem is not the AI but the animations.
"I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
I will face my fear.
I will let it pass through me.
Where the fear has gone,
there shall be nothing.
Only I will remain." --Dune by Frank Herbert

User avatar
Blacky
Explorer
Posts: 272
Joined: January 25th, 2013, 4:04 am
Location: Provence, France
Contact:

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Blacky » September 30th, 2013, 12:33 am

Gizmo wrote:Internal coherence is indeed paramount, as is the story presented; but as far as the combat mechanics go... it could be a collectable card game for all I [generally] care; as abstracted as they care to make it; so long as it's challenging and the rules fair, and the AI adheres to them.
If it's an abstract, it's fine. I have no issue per se with a game choosing to use let's say a deck of cards, or even rock paper scissors to handle conflict.

But when the designer choose to go another way, let's say something somewhat realistic (as in loosely drawn from reality), this way has to be somewhat believable, and coherent.

And even if you don't see it, an extremely vast majority of people agrees with this. Let me put dumbed down: if in the game the base and cumulated damage of a small handgun is vastly superior to a vehicle gun (like a fully auto .50 cal), you'll never hear the end of it. In 15 years people will still talk about it. Yet, you say it'll never be an issue :?

By the way, you were just plain wrong. A lot of role-playing game don't make the wizard an artillery machine, and don't make him weak in close combat. A lot of rpg, some would say the good ones, let's you do what you want within the paradigm of the world. So of course if your character spend time and energy learning close combat, that's less time to learn magic. But that's your (and his) choices. One very basic example, as far as I know every BRP game does this.

Oops, maybe you meant computer rpg? Well, why shot for bad example, for the lowest common denominator? :roll:

In any case, what your describing is an old misinterpreted relic of past times, when roleplaying game was mostly done by classes. Quite thankfully, this is not the 70's anymore. Some lazy unimaginative game designer still do this, but with decades of experience and over $3M budget, I won't apply those adjectives to inXile.
If they decided (for game sake) to not allow heavy weapons specialists to learn HtH, espionage skills, or for that matter to carry a side arm back-up piece ~because they wanted them to be inherently vulnerable...
Would be an incredibly bad choice. This is supposed to be a good crpg. What, my character want to pick up a handgun and fire it, and it can? The sky open and God's hand come down ripping it from my character's hand? A magic field force appear around the gun?

I have absolutely no problem with this (never give it a moment's thoughts) in an abstract game. I'm quite fond of Team Fortress and it does exactly what you're describing. But there's no roleplaying in it.

Let me put it another way. If something happen in a Wasteland novella, it needs to be possible in the game. Ok, we can look the other way when there's a huge technical limitation, but when it's simply rule mechanic, no, absolutely no. And yes, rule mechanic are simple. If they can't figure it out, they need to hire a (real, meaning tabletop) good rpg designer and quite fast. He will probably have a very good answer to their issue in his sleep.
Last edited by Blacky on September 30th, 2013, 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chez Blacky, jdr et autres
If things make sense in a real-world sense, I don’t think people give too much flak for it not being game-y enough, I think keeping the world sense together is the most important thing we can be doing.—Brian Fargo

User avatar
Blacky
Explorer
Posts: 272
Joined: January 25th, 2013, 4:04 am
Location: Provence, France
Contact:

Re: About stances

Post by Blacky » September 30th, 2013, 12:39 am

Valar_Omega wrote:Actually on the matter of doing recon and ambushes a prone stance would overlap with the move silently skill(maybe perception as well).
True, didn't think of that. So, if coherently applied and properly animated, strike what I said… crawling will probably be a part of this skill.
Chez Blacky, jdr et autres
If things make sense in a real-world sense, I don’t think people give too much flak for it not being game-y enough, I think keeping the world sense together is the most important thing we can be doing.—Brian Fargo

User avatar
Hiver
Adventurer
Posts: 743
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 4:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Hiver » September 30th, 2013, 7:18 am

Gizmo wrote:
Hiver wrote:for the devs:
Just make a visual representation that shows me the movement range i can achieve with a selected character and AP cost - WHICH SHOULD BE LESS for going in any straight line - whether its "diagonal" or not.
The point of combat in games like these is to win by using the rules, not whether or not it follows reality in the least. If it does ~cool; if it does not, then it's simply the rules of the game... you play according to the rules ~the challenge of winning the fight is unaffected by this.
Irrelevant.

I do agree with that on a theoretical level - provided there is a good reason for such a mechanic or such a design BUT - if there is no real need or reason for a simplification - then it should not exist or be forced upon us.

There is literally no reason at all to have a square grid imposed onto the game. As they said themselves the game does not use the grid for its calculations at all. It was simply tacked on - and then influenced the mechanics of the game in a negative way which we can see for ourselves - because blatantly, this new version we see is worse then the first shown example.

The game is degrading in front of our very eyes.

They are going backwards. Its getting worse instead of better.

In innumerable RPGs the wizard [aka the artillery unit] is vulnerable and near helpless in close melee combat ~it's a function of the game design, not plausibility... A wizard is presumably brilliant, and there is no credible reason they could not train with a sword & shield... but allowing that in the game diminishes the fighter classes whose specialty is combat, not spells. Game rules always trump the fiction and even all semblance of believability if it comes to it.
No it doesnt.

As far as wizards go, in your example we are talking about a rigid class system that is intentionally designed like that from the ground up - for many different reasons, ranging from time and money concerns - to pressures from publishers to increase audience in order to achieve greater profit - to just blindly repeating what was done before to incapability of any design team to do something else.

There is actually no good reason for mages to be incapable of wielding weapons or wearing armor.
It an unnatural, fake, forced conceit to cut corners and simply go down the path of least resistance - and so on.

One natural limitation that can be used instead of this fake conceit is the very time someone needs to spend on training a specific skill - but that has to be woven into the design from the pre production stage onwards.
Such as a character not being able to spend enough time to achieve mastery in both skills.
The simple concepts of fighter-mage and dual classing or multi classing is very well known - isnt it? - even in a class based system.

And it works just fine. - edit- the problem with pure fighters is not that other classes can also fight - but that a pure fighter is not designed to its fullest capabilities - due to limitations of the devs themselves - AND the fact that most RPGs are way too constricted in their gameplay - which in 99% of cases is based solely of combat and almost nothing else.
-

A game just telling me "hey your mage cannot do this because i say so" is a stupid game.
and irrevocably less then it can be.

Plausibility and believability and yes the dreaded REALISM (which most people dont even understand as a concept) are not there just for their own sake, to be pretty - they have very important and incredibly strong influences on the whole game in every sense.


'Realms of Arkania' also uses a square grid and APs, and it plays just fine like that; so will WL2. They won't release something they are unhappy with.
What they are happy with is the most irrelevant and most obnoxiously false reason or excuse anyone can invent.

Gizmo wrote: I agree with what I've read posted about dev interaction on the forums...but I know at least one forum that must be near magical for the environment... Devs post all the time, answering questions, and even giving suggestions to modders. I've even seen them sit down with a beer and call for feature suggestions, and code them on the spot, and they appeared in the next patch. One guy asked for a UI change and they Dev asked him why, and it was because he only had one serviceable hand... And so they changed it; added mouse-keys to optionally replace the WASD if desired.

Twice I asked for features in their level editor ~and twice those features showed up; Great place, great forum; great crowd on that forum. They made the Legend of Grimrock game.
Good for them. I never liked blobbers, even if they are good since i organically despise FP in RPG games - but if i did i would be throwing heaps of money at them and they would have a supporter for life.

I had hoped and expected at least half of such interaction from these guys and this kind of blatantly false accord Inxile is showing just leaves me disgusted.
Not to mention that some high ranked people in the team have a very negative and down right insulting, sneering mentality towards "people on forums" - which was very visible in that live video feed made for Torment kickstarter.

Which then is very visible in their behaviour during last several months and their flirt with mass market media and almost complete avoidance of direct communication with their backer base and these forums from the start.


Now,

Exploration


there can be none - if the whole game is designed so it leads me, nay - verily pulls and yanks me by my nose ...- or ear, as it were, from one "interesting" situation to the next. Whether by those horrible corridors that the whole map of the area is, or by that bloody radio.

That is a mass market design. Screaming bloody mass market design.

Some thing need to be left unknow, un-pointed to - SO I CAN DISCOVER THEM MYSELF.

otherwise, there is no real exploration, no thing to discover, no mystery, no nothing.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Zombra » September 30th, 2013, 8:47 am

Blacky wrote:But when the designer choose to go another way, let's say something somewhat realistic (as in loosely drawn from reality), this way has to be somewhat believable, and coherent.
I know, right? That's why I couldn't play the original Wasteland. The guys moved on a grid! So unrealistic! How about Half-Life 2? Gordon Freeman carried like 10 different guns all at once and had no feet! That game sucked. Batman: Arkham City! How come Batman "levelled up" with new abilities every hour? That makes no sense! He's been a crimefighter for years! Bad game. Team Fortress 2! Beautiful graphics, but how can a dead man reappear after 15 seconds? So unrealistic. You'd think that all these decisions were made because realism and good gameplay are two different things. Nah, what a crazy idea.
And even if you don't see it, an extremely vast majority of people agrees with this.
Huh! It seems that the extremely vast majority of people are also very economical: they've decided to all share a single forum account. :lol:
If in the game the base and cumulated damage of a small handgun is vastly superior to a vehicle gun (like a fully auto .50 cal), you'll never hear the end of it.
I'm delighted that you chose that example. There will be handguns in Wasteland 2 that do superior damage to some heavy weapons.
Let me put it another way. If something happen in a Wasteland novella, it needs to be possible in the game. Ok, we can look the other way when there's a huge technical limitation, but when it's simply rule mechanic, no, absolutely no. And yes, rule mechanic are simple. If they can't figure it out, they need to hire a (real, meaning tabletop) good rpg designer and quite fast. He will probably have a very good answer to their issue in his sleep.
Hmm, so in your dream world, there's no difference between writing a novel and designing a game? Why not demand that the game be just like an oil painting or flower arrangement?

And please - don't pretend to be some big authority on game design ... the guys at inXile have been designing games since before you were born. It's weird that you claim so much tabletop knowledge, but refuse to acknowledge the differences between games and movies.
Image

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3715
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Gizmo » September 30th, 2013, 9:23 am

Blacky wrote:And even if you don't see it, an extremely vast majority of people agrees with this.
That parts irrelivant; the vast majority of people are not clear even what an RPG is.
Let me put dumbed down: if in the game the base and cumulated damage of a small handgun is vastly superior to a vehicle gun (like a fully auto .50 cal), you'll never hear the end of it. In 15 years people will still talk about it. Yet, you say it'll never be an issue :?
Don't bother 'dumbing' down for my account; I see it all... but I do use common figures of speech in posts... And I said that I would have no qualms... not that others wouldn't complain... other will always complain ~about anything that comes to mind, or even otherwise.
By the way, you were just plain wrong. A lot of role-playing game don't make the wizard an artillery machine, and don't make him weak in close combat. A lot of rpg, some would say the good ones, let's you do what you want within the paradigm of the world.
All wizards are the artillery unit; it's the only reason for area damage spells in combat situations, and charm spells in conversation. You have to understand that any good game has tools ~PCs/NPCs as tools, that perform a job and they wrap this in the fiction ~whatever fiction suits the details; but those needs form a framework ~immutable [or should be] even when the fiction would suggest otherwise ~(even when the mage wants to learn to use a chain-whip and dragonscale full plate armor). This is not (BTW) what is meant by the term 'role playing'... one is not 'filling a role' in a roleplaying game, the object is exptrapolating a mind's motivation and personal behavior in the given situations... It's not simply about Tank/scout/Air support ~Fighter/Rogue/mage ~~Though ironically Team Fortress is ~and in that [unrelated] sense, Team Fortress is all about "role-playing". :lol:
In any case, what your describing is an old misinterpreted relic of past times, when roleplaying game was mostly done by classes. Quite thankfully, this is not the 70's anymore. Some lazy unimaginative game designer still do this, but with decades of experience and over $3M budget, I won't apply those adjectives to inXile.
Relics of the past [as you name them] tend to be sterner stuff, and better designed ~as a rule. Remember they are always the foundation of which the recent derivative works are based and built upon.

*And IMO it usually turns out (in distilled essence) to be a coat of technological 'stucco' on top of the ironwork. ;)
Would be an incredibly bad choice. This is supposed to be a good crpg. What, my character want to pick up a handgun and fire it, and it can? The sky open and God's hand come down ripping it from my character's hand? A magic field force appear around the gun?
It always depends on the gameplay; I don't expect that in WL2 ~they are all paramilitary, you would expect them to have basic ability with a pistol ~along with anyone else in that world really. Pistols would be insignificant though... However, if the rules forbade it, then so be it IMO. If they implemented that and tested that and had it that way for game balance sake, then that would be the rule, and I would have no issues with it ~unless I met with counterpart troops that had side arms when mine could not.
Let me put it another way. If something happen in a Wasteland novella, it needs to be possible in the game. Ok, we can look the other way when there's a huge technical limitation, but when it's simply rule mechanic, no, absolutely no. And yes, rule mechanic are simple. If they can't figure it out, they need to hire a (real, meaning tabletop) good rpg designer and quite fast. He will probably have a very good answer to their issue in his sleep.
I disagree. A novella (as well as a cutscene), is there for extended details, and need not be possible in general gameplay. You would have that... In the Witcher ~say... that Geralt must be able to [for instance] leap & crawl up the side of any three story house, and punch demons in mid-air as they try to follow him; This is not necessary. The novella (and cutscenes) are externalized and they don't need to clutter the game mechanics with that stuff; it's there for exposition sake.

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by meganothing » September 30th, 2013, 9:31 am

Hiver wrote: There is literally no reason at all to have a square grid imposed onto the game.
I too didn't quite understand the reason for the grid. They said their mouths were watering, but why exactly? A few sentences later in the update they mention this: "Of course, while the advantage in positioning, production time and map layout is there...".

It is not qute clear if this sentence is comparing square to hex or grid to free-form, they would probably work for both. But these are genuine reasons for a grid. And I am sure that path-finding is another one.

And then there is at least one advantage for the player: If you have no grid, it is somewhat more difficult to run as far as you can with enough AP for an attack left. At least without sometimes running just a bit too far. With snap-in to a grid this danger is far lower.

So without debating the importance of them, there definitely are reasons.

User avatar
Darkzone
Adventurer
Posts: 508
Joined: December 21st, 2012, 7:37 pm

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Darkzone » September 30th, 2013, 12:05 pm

meganothing wrote:I too didn't quite understand the reason for the grid. They said their mouths were watering, but why exactly?
Besides the efficient and easy pathplanning of the automated agents (A.I. for beginners) there are many more reasons. Each node or field can have different values that can be explicit used for the automated agents, this cannot be made so easy with a free movement system. Values like a cover for different directions etc. As i have already written this kind of cover system may even require a grid system. Also this grid system may be good for different behavior of automated agents. Read my last posts, for more understanding or the link i have posted, and if you have questions i may try to answer them.
In the Wasteland every breath i take. I am.

Thank you Brian Fargo for the games i play.
Thank you Fields of the Nephilim for the music i hear.

Militant
Scholar
Posts: 120
Joined: September 28th, 2013, 10:42 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Militant » September 30th, 2013, 12:18 pm

I don't mind the grid, though I suppose I'm slightly disapointed that its a Square grid and not hex.. Hex would provide more options and variety

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 3715
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Gizmo » September 30th, 2013, 3:59 pm

Militant wrote:I don't mind the grid, though I suppose I'm slightly disapointed that its a Square grid and not hex.. Hex would provide more options and variety
At least the gunfire does not have to be grid-line-of-sight... in Realms of Arkania (IIRC), you could only attack in the cardinal directions. 8-)

User avatar
Brother None
Developer
Posts: 2911
Joined: March 5th, 2012, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Brother None » September 30th, 2013, 4:19 pm

I think other posters have enumerated various problems that can stem from devs posting very actively on forums. We're careful in our communication but have proven time and again that we are listening. That's definitely not going to change now, when everyone at inXile is absolutely swamped with developing the game.
Hiver wrote:There is literally no reason at all to have a square grid imposed onto the game. As they said themselves the game does not use the grid for its calculations at all.
You've been saying this for some time. You really need to re-read the update. The grid is the basis for all in-game movement and positioning calculations, the *display* is free-movement. For the purposes of gameplay mechanics, everyone is moving on a grid, straight or diagonal, but the game represents this graphcially by free pathfinding movement. You've got it exactly the wrong way around.
Thomas Beekers
Creative Producer

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by meganothing » September 30th, 2013, 7:05 pm

Darkzone wrote:
meganothing wrote:I too didn't quite understand the reason for the grid. They said their mouths were watering, but why exactly?
Sorry, this should have been "At first I too didn't understand...". I still find the term "mouth watering" a bit out of place when talking about really standard solutions for this type of game. And I was assuming at the time that the mouth-watering was about the visible grid for the player, not the internal grid.

But hey, a kickstarter update shouldn't be dry and boring.
Besides the efficient and easy pathplanning of the automated agents (A.I. for beginners) there are many more reasons. Each node or field can have different values that can be explicit used for the automated agents, this cannot be made so easy with a free movement system. Values like a cover for different directions etc. As i have already written this kind of cover system may even require a grid system. Also this grid system may be good for different behavior of automated agents. Read my last posts, for more understanding or the link i have posted, and if you have questions i may try to answer them.
Yes, another good reason.

Read your last post, mostly accurate. But I'm not sure what point you wanted to make with O(n^2/2) for path calculation ?
At least for pathfinding only the squares reachable by the agent need to be considered, a limited value not based on map size (still O(n^2) but with n=max APs). And for long-term path planning in maps with many closed of paths a mix of algorithms would be much faster than an exhaustive graph search.

For example the map could be divided into smaller maps and interconnects between these maps would be used as intermediate goals. To get from a point on sub-map A to a point on sub-map B the agent would first look into a table that says he needs to go to interconnect 3 on map A to cross into B.

And what did you mean with "simple Pythagoras to calculate the movement" ? Did you mean using 2^(1/2)==1.41... instead of 1.5 ? This should have no influence on the graph search, it is only a constant factor that you mulitply with the number of diagonal moves. The only reason to use 1.5 instead of 1.41 IMO is that 1.5 is easier to calculate for us humans.

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9760
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Drool » September 30th, 2013, 10:10 pm

Hiver wrote:there can be none - if the whole game is designed so it leads me, nay - verily pulls and yanks me by my nose ...- or ear, as it were, from one "interesting" situation to the next. Whether by those horrible corridors that the whole map of the area is, or by that bloody radio.
You do realise that was a demo, right? As in it was an extremely limited area designed to show off combat, conversation, trade, choices, and skill use, right? Furthermore, you also realise that it was set in a geographic location that lended itself to limited directions one can go, right?

Assuming the entire game is going to be point-to-point canyon wandering based on a 15 minute press demo is more than a little bizarre.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

User avatar
Darkzone
Adventurer
Posts: 508
Joined: December 21st, 2012, 7:37 pm

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Darkzone » October 1st, 2013, 12:07 am

meganothing wrote:Read your last post, mostly accurate. But I'm not sure what point you wanted to make with O(n^2/2) for path calculation ?
This would be the cost around for generating a graph based on the approximated distance between two nodes with the pythagoras. On this generated graph the automated agents could do their calculations.
The pathfinding from node x to node y based on A* is O(IEI log IVI) that is very good.
Naturally the O(n^2/2) could be reduced to more a O(n^2/X) but still the n^2 for a x * y field strength is deadly. Do you understand the O() notation?
Meganothing sry but to the rest of your post i can respond on Thursday. But then i will take my time to let you understand better my previous post.
In the Wasteland every breath i take. I am.

Thank you Brian Fargo for the games i play.
Thank you Fields of the Nephilim for the music i hear.

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by meganothing » October 1st, 2013, 3:37 am

Darkzone wrote: This would be the cost around for generating a graph based on the approximated distance between two nodes with the pythagoras. On this generated graph the automated agents could do their calculations.
The pathfinding from node x to node y based on A* is O(IEI log IVI) that is very good.
Naturally the O(n^2/2) could be reduced to more a O(n^2/X) but still the n^2 for a x * y field strength is deadly. Do you understand the O() notation?
Yes, I have comp science degree, we can use our lingo ;-). As I tried to say, nobody will use a simple unmodified O(n^2) algorithm (with n=field size) on a big map. You can reduce the complexity drastically with divide&conquer (on fixed maps) or a heuristic or by using incomplete solutions (at least in games). But this is independent of the low-level algorithm used!

Pleaase ignore my second question, I found Drool's post where he proposed the pythagoras scheme. Which is not likely to be used (among other reeasons) as even moving slightly diagonal would cost 1.5 times as much as moving orthogonal to the grid.

But even if a pythagoras scheme was used you would never exhaustively calculcate the distance to every point on the map because your agent can't move that far in one turn (and only for that is it important to calculate distance accurately) and you always can reduce the problem as I said above. You also wouldn't do hundreds of square root and exponentiation calculations but use a simple table in which the pythagoras for all or most possible values a and b was precomputed.

User avatar
Hiver
Adventurer
Posts: 743
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 4:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Hiver » October 1st, 2013, 6:15 am

Brother None wrote:I think other posters have enumerated various problems that can stem from devs posting very actively on forums.
Imagined "problems". >Yes - paranoia against the backers or members of the forums.
Why not? After all we are your enemies. What ever else can come out of dialogue with your backers and forum goers?

Who ever asked for devs posting "very actively"?
And what other things might come out of it then "problems", eh?
We're careful in our communication but have proven time and again that we are listening. That's definitely not going to change now, when everyone at inXile is absolutely swamped with developing the game.
No need to change anything since youve proven your incapable of it and too paranoid to see anything else but "problems".
Hiver wrote:There is literally no reason at all to have a square grid imposed onto the game. As they said themselves the game does not use the grid for its calculations at all.
You've been saying this for some time. You really need to re-read the update. The grid is the basis for all in-game movement and positioning calculations, the *display* is free-movement. For the purposes of gameplay mechanics, everyone is moving on a grid, straight or diagonal, but the game represents this graphcially by free pathfinding movement. You've got it exactly the wrong way around.[/quote]
If you say so - i must be wrong then.

As far as i could see...
Here is a little backstory on the change. Originally, we didn’t intend to have any hex or square grid during combat. It was going to be more free form movement. One of our engineers added a hex grid as a debug test to approximate spacing of characters in combat encounters.
This to me looked to be saying that there was no underlying grid at all, at the start of the design - and that it was then later added.

If you wanted people to understand you better then you should explain better.

So now youre saying that there was a grid from the start... only you didnt intend to show it visually... but ... then you saw that hex grid is cool... and then you found it presents problems in the design of the architecture and spaces in the game areas - and then you changed it to a square grid.

If im getting it right this time around.

Which should mean that the square grid was there from the start... only.... you didnt think it would be good to show the grid to the players, yes?

Thats just... great.

meganothing
Scholar
Posts: 238
Joined: April 28th, 2012, 4:40 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by meganothing » October 1st, 2013, 7:17 am

Hiver wrote:
Brother None wrote:I think other posters have enumerated various problems that can stem from devs posting very actively on forums.
Imagined "problems". >Yes - paranoia against the backers or members of the forums.
Why not? After all we are your enemies. What ever else can come out of dialogue with your backers and forum goers?
...
No need to change anything since youve proven your incapable of it and too paranoid to see anything else but "problems".
Hiver, don't you see that your aggressive form of communication is the best justification for their cautiousness? You are practically the embodiment of some of the reasons.

User avatar
Brother None
Developer
Posts: 2911
Joined: March 5th, 2012, 1:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by Brother None » October 1st, 2013, 10:51 am

Hiver wrote:This to me looked to be saying that there was no underlying grid at all, at the start of the design - and that it was then later added.
That's not the same thing you've been saying for some time now, you said "the game does not use the grid for its calculations at all". That is not true. It uses it for all its calculations.

Also, we're talking about, what, 10 months ago? We were barely out of pre-production then. Sure, at the very start of design it was free-form, and there were other things different that long ago too. That's how development works, you iterate and add different elements throughout the game.
Hiver wrote:Which should mean that the square grid was there from the start... only.... you didnt think it would be good to show the grid to the players, yes?
I didn't even remotely say or imply anything like that. Are you ironically trying to prove people's point about devs posting on forums and people intentionally misreading their posts?
Thomas Beekers
Creative Producer

User avatar
dorkboy
Master
Posts: 1772
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:37 am

Re: Update 35: We’re Still Listening

Post by dorkboy » October 1st, 2013, 11:35 am

so the displayed movement (not the AP calculation) will follow the same "graph" as the calculated grid path - only smoothed?
(i imagine you'd run into [sic] the same problem with the pathing/collision otherwise, if only cosmetically?)
marmelade & jam

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests