0000543: More realistic movement/viewing/shooting. - Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup Tracker

(0001558)
rob (developer)
2010-01-24 18:09

It doesn't mean that diagonal movement speed would have to be adapted also -- why?

So far, the main argument against making spell range (= beam range) circular is that the range is currently implemented by counting the cells a beam travels through. I would like to change this in the future, so we could experiment with euclidean spell range.

I don't think movement metric is likely to be changed, though.

You can search the SF tracker for some previous discussion: "circular spell range" or so.

(0001579)
Eifeltrampel (reporter)
2010-01-25 12:29

I thought that movement has to be adopted also, because if the range is adapted.
Which may result in a shorter range, it should also take more time to travel diagonal.

(0001585)
doy (developer)
2010-01-25 17:04

I'm one of the few proponents of a true euclidian metric (including appropriately scaled down diagonal movement speeds), but can't seem to convince anyone else of this(: I do agree that we should pick a metric and use it consistently though... the current situation where you can cast spells closer to the edge of los by approaching monsters diagonally is pretty weird.

(0001627)
KiloByte (manager)
2010-01-25 23:55

I'm with you, doy. Euclides > current metric.
We may use a hybrid for diagonal movement (like, 1.2 not 1.41), but for spell ranges, it's a much needed fix.

In a related note: should I give IOOD a speed boost when moving diagonally, to make it consistent with the current diagonal breakage?

(0001646)
Kyrris (reporter)
2010-01-26 02:43

Square viewport.

(0001664)
dpeg (administrator)
2010-01-26 12:02

This is not something we will solve here in the tracker. My opinion is to try square viewport (so a non-Euclidean metric) as I reckon "all directions are worth the same" to be more important than "nice, round field of vision".

(0001812)
dpeg (administrator)
2010-01-28 19:32

Oh, and I think we should close? This is not a topic for the bug/proposal tracker, I think.

(0001826)
dpeg (administrator)
2010-01-28 20:58

Can close as well. This type of question needs a wiki page, not a tracker item.

Notes
(0001558) rob (developer) 2010-01-24 18:09	It doesn't mean that diagonal movement speed would have to be adapted also -- why? So far, the main argument against making spell range (= beam range) circular is that the range is currently implemented by counting the cells a beam travels through. I would like to change this in the future, so we could experiment with euclidean spell range. I don't think movement metric is likely to be changed, though. You can search the SF tracker for some previous discussion: "circular spell range" or so.

(0001579) Eifeltrampel (reporter) 2010-01-25 12:29	I thought that movement has to be adopted also, because if the range is adapted. Which may result in a shorter range, it should also take more time to travel diagonal.

(0001585) doy (developer) 2010-01-25 17:04	I'm one of the few proponents of a true euclidian metric (including appropriately scaled down diagonal movement speeds), but can't seem to convince anyone else of this(: I do agree that we should pick a metric and use it consistently though... the current situation where you can cast spells closer to the edge of los by approaching monsters diagonally is pretty weird.

(0001627) KiloByte (manager) 2010-01-25 23:55	I'm with you, doy. Euclides > current metric. We may use a hybrid for diagonal movement (like, 1.2 not 1.41), but for spell ranges, it's a much needed fix. In a related note: should I give IOOD a speed boost when moving diagonally, to make it consistent with the current diagonal breakage?

(0001646) Kyrris (reporter) 2010-01-26 02:43	Square viewport.

(0001664) dpeg (administrator) 2010-01-26 12:02	This is not something we will solve here in the tracker. My opinion is to try square viewport (so a non-Euclidean metric) as I reckon "all directions are worth the same" to be more important than "nice, round field of vision".

(0001812) dpeg (administrator) 2010-01-28 19:32	Oh, and I think we should close? This is not a topic for the bug/proposal tracker, I think.

(0001826) dpeg (administrator) 2010-01-28 20:58	Can close as well. This type of question needs a wiki page, not a tracker item.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2010-01-24 17:39	Eifeltrampel	New Issue
2010-01-24 18:09	rob	Note Added: 0001558
2010-01-25 12:29	Eifeltrampel	Note Added: 0001579
2010-01-25 17:04	doy	Note Added: 0001585
2010-01-25 23:55	KiloByte	Note Added: 0001627
2010-01-26 02:43	Kyrris	Note Added: 0001646
2010-01-26 12:02	dpeg	Note Added: 0001664
2010-01-28 19:32	dpeg	Note Added: 0001812
2010-01-28 20:58	dpeg	Note Added: 0001826
2010-01-28 20:58	dpeg	Status	new => closed
2010-01-28 20:58	dpeg	Resolution	open => done
2010-05-30 20:52	rob	Relationship added	related to 0001642