Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 1, 2009, 21:50   #181
Atarlost
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 441
Atarlost is on a distinguished road
Double-tiling is bad enough with graphics that have tile borders. (and yes, I have seen a game that uses rectangular "hex" grid because of a two unit per tile limit) Without tile borders, which ascii doesn't support, it's going to be completely illegible.
__________________
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to bind them.
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness interrupt the movie.
Atarlost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1, 2009, 22:57   #182
Nolendil
Adept
 
Nolendil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 171
Donated: 10 euro
Nolendil is on a distinguished road
HexRogue (java required) works well although I think the dungeon looks more like a cave this way since the walls are often more irregular.
I admit the / and \ don't look like standard ascii characters but it should be possible to fix that.

I don't think Angband needs to move to hex.
However, I've been pondering about doing an hex variant for years but I haven't managed to beat my lazyness so far ^^
__________________
A(3.2.0) C "Angdiira II" DP L:36 DL:44(2200') A+ R+ Sp w:Whip of Westernesse(+10,+10)(+2)
A Mx H- D c-- f- PV+ s- d P++ M+
C- S-- I So B++ ac GHB- SQ+ RQ++ V+

Last edited by Nolendil; July 1, 2009 at 23:17.
Nolendil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2, 2009, 00:21   #183
zaimoni
Knight
 
zaimoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 590
zaimoni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atarlost View Post
Double-tiling is bad enough with graphics that have tile borders. (and yes, I have seen a game that uses rectangular "hex" grid because of a two unit per tile limit) Without tile borders, which ascii doesn't support, it's going to be completely illegible.
Or rather, most implementations of curses for text consoles don't support --the flags for selectively showing bottom/top/left/right borders are required by reasonably recent XOPEN curses specifications.

Curses wrappers for graphical frontends (e.g., PDCurses/SDL) don't have this difficulty.
zaimoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2, 2009, 01:53   #184
buzzkill
Prophet
 
buzzkill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,939
Donated: $8
buzzkill is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolendil View Post
I don't think Angband needs to move to hex.
However, I've been pondering about doing an hex variant for years but I haven't managed to beat my lazyness so far ^^
That's cool, but definitely in the variant realm.
__________________
www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder.
buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2, 2009, 04:26   #185
Pete Mack
Prophet
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,751
Donated: $40
Pete Mack is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolendil View Post
HexRogue (java required) works well although I think the dungeon looks more like a cave this way since the walls are often more irregular.
I admit the / and \ don't look like standard ascii characters but it should be possible to fix that.

I don't think Angband needs to move to hex.
However, I've been pondering about doing an hex variant for years but I haven't managed to beat my lazyness so far ^^
It takes some getting used to (and I think they should disable the j&k keys). I'd forgotten just how brutal rogue is...

Killed by an orc at level 4!
Pete Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3, 2009, 04:01   #186
Catatonic
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2
Catatonic is on a distinguished road
It seems to me that the core issue is the distinction between wall visibility (intuitively edge-based) and creature/contents visibility (intuitively center-based). We end up with mutually-exclusive requirements only when we insist that they be one and the same thing.

Why not just say that a tile is visible (and therefore gets stored in the memory map) if you can see an edge (or even a corner), but its contents are only visible (and therefore targetable) if you can see its center. This deals nicely with one of the core 'problem cases' of a ghost in a wall 20 tiles down a corrdor. The wall is visible, but neither the ghost not its wall are targetable (and by symmetry, it can't target the player). This also seems to be intuitive when, for instance, tossing a stone-to-mud at a distant wall. Sure you can see the wall, but it only gets 'mudded' if you hit it dead center, which requires you to dig out some intervening tiles, rather than just hit it with a 'glancing transmutation'.

Edit: Another thing that occurred to me while I was reading this thread was the handling of 'peeking', where the player gets to see everyone in the room just by standing at the doorway. To me, it seems infinitely more elegant simply to offer a 'peek' command, which functions as a los-limited 'detect monster' spell centered at a location of choice adjacent to the player. This eliminates the 'shootable by anyone in the room' problem, while at the same time allowing the player to check the room out without exposing themselves (assuming the monsters they can already see aren't sufficiently terrifying )

Last edited by Catatonic; July 3, 2009 at 04:13.
Catatonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3, 2009, 10:46   #187
The Wanderer
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2
The Wanderer is on a distinguished road
(Edit to add the second comment, which slipped my mind the first time through.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catatonic View Post
It seems to me that the core issue is the distinction between wall visibility (intuitively edge-based) and creature/contents visibility (intuitively center-based). We end up with mutually-exclusive requirements only when we insist that they be one and the same thing.

Why not just say that a tile is visible (and therefore gets stored in the memory map) if you can see an edge (or even a corner), but its contents are only visible (and therefore targetable) if you can see its center.
For what it's worth, this is more or less exactly what I suggested a couple of pages back.

Quote:
This deals nicely with one of the core 'problem cases' of a ghost in a wall 20 tiles down a corrdor. The wall is visible, but neither the ghost not its wall are targetable (and by symmetry, it can't target the player).
One problem with this is that it also means that the ghost wouldn't be visible, or targetable, even if it were in a wall immediately adjacent to the player - which doesn't necessarily make as much sense. I see no obvious way to avoid this without special-casing, and I'm not sure whether or not this is undesirable enough to all by itself disqualify this approach from consideration.

Last edited by The Wanderer; July 3, 2009 at 10:52.
The Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5, 2009, 23:02   #188
Catatonic
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2
Catatonic is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wanderer View Post
(Edit to add the second comment, which slipped my mind the first time through.)


For what it's worth, this is more or less exactly what I suggested a couple of pages back.
That'll teach me to skim-read

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wanderer View Post
One problem with this is that it also means that the ghost wouldn't be visible, or targetable, even if it were in a wall immediately adjacent to the player - which doesn't necessarily make as much sense. I see no obvious way to avoid this without special-casing, and I'm not sure whether or not this is undesirable enough to all by itself disqualify this approach from consideration.
Well, I think it's important to satisfy the los-symmetry requirement first of all... asymmetrical los leads to potentially abusable situations (even AI 'abusing' los to ambush the player), which IMO is a lot more severe than just
having 'odd' los rules.

On top of that, you have the requirement that creatures 'inside' a wall can shoot out, which basically means that a wall can't hide its own contents.

This seems to induce the general rule that los calculation ignores the status of the start and end tiles. I don't think this generates any weird corner-cases. I suppose you could hand-wave that away by saying ethereal creatures emit light that is only partially blocked by real objects, if that's the sort of thing you like doing
Catatonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
feature request - disturb on reverse LOS PowerDiver Vanilla 2 May 18, 2009 06:46


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.