4 ms·
> However, the irregular tiles actually bother more than if it was a standard geodesic sphere which only had 12 pentagons. For one, the fact that tiles are diff
by RickHull 12y ago
> However, the irregular tiles actually bother more than if it was a standard geodesic sphere which only had 12 pentagons. For one, the fact that tiles are different sizes looks kind of weird. More importantly, this tile layout could actually make an important strategic difference (much more than if there were only 12 pentagonal tiles). Assuming movement costs between adjacent cells are constant, a straight line may not be the fastest way between points anymore! Looking at the heavily distorted mesh example, I can see several places where a path through a few large cells has the same movement cost as the straightest path.
I would say there is nothing wrong with strategic differences, so long as they are irregularly distributed. Regular or predictable distribution would cause strategic ruts. Also, irregular movement costs are a feature. Ancient spice trading routes and deer paths in the woods rarely follow straight lines either.
- KeytarHero 12y agoIrregular movement costs would be there anyway, due to forests, hills, and other terrain. The fact that "this space is arbitrarily bigger" isn't really a good justification, especially when the game is doing this in an effort to be more realistic. I also think this could lead to a whole bunch of balancing issues that might not immediately be obvious. Although some random-but-fair differences in balance such as this are okay, they should be based on the terrain, resources, and other features that mirror the real world, not "this tile is just bigger".
- skybrian 12y agoIt wouldn't be too hard to give it some justification. The smaller tiles could have hills or forests that would naturally slow down movement. Or perhaps go back and redistribute the smaller tiles after terrain generation?