Lux in tenebris
Auto-translated
As a result, the decision was made to have large and small creatures (occupying one cell and more than one cell). Now let's see what happens if we have such different creatures while our field is divided into hexes. Here is the diagram for a creature occupying 1 hex:
Legend:
* Light-colored hexes denote adjacent cells;
* Dark ones - hexes occupied by the creature;
* The circle denotes the usable area; the creature must be inscribed within it if we want to avoid overlaps between creatures on a static image;
* The line from the boundary of the circle to the center of an adjacent hex is the distance at which a strike should land to avoid deaths by heart attack (the weapon swept past) or brutal violence (the implement went straight through).
For a creature two hexes in size, the diagram will look like this:
As we can see, there are two options:
* A round creature - the usable area of such a creature is very small, and there are already problems with attack distances;
* An oval creature - the usable area is larger, but there are many problems with attack distances - it's enough to compare diagonal and horizontal attacks. Additionally, such a creature is not universal (due to a lack of central symmetry); controlling such a creature on the battlefield and choosing a position for it is very difficult (especially considering that the direction of the creature on the field indicates its affiliation as "friend" or "foe").
For a three-hex sized creature, the diagram will take the following form:
As seen, the usable area is very small (it seems slightly larger than a one-hex creature - in reality, it's obvious that the creature's area increased by 1.33 times), while problems with attack distance are quite high - just compare the bottom two segments.
Specifically, why we talk so much about the usable area of a creature:
In this example, two creatures occupying 3 hexes each stand side by side. Visually, the two creatures will stand far enough apart that a passage the width of another such creature will be visible between them, but due to the occupied hexes, no one will be able to pass through. If a player plays with the grid turned off - which is an option - they won't understand why they can't pass.
And finally, an example of a truly large creature:
Here there are minor problems with attack distances and no problems with usable area; however, the creature itself occupies 5.33 times more than a one-hex creature (and 7 times more game area). The difference becomes very large, the creature becomes very easy to block on the battlefield, it will look imposing, but playing with it will be very difficult.
But the main problem arises with long and stretched creatures (for example, riders on horses). They occupy a visually very small usable area. In the case of hexes, we are forced to use the largest creature template for them, resulting in a huge difference in attack distances and a massive blocked space on the battlefield despite visual emptiness.
Based on all the above, the decision was made to move the field to a square grid. At the same time, obviously, we took a step away from the series' legacy. Oh, how many times during the project's development could one hear "bring back the hexes"... But the transition to 3D required exactly this change. Squares are not devoid of all the mentioned problems, but the difference is very significant.
Let's look at a creature occupying one square; the legend remains the same:
It was decided not to use creatures sized 2 by 1 (for the same reasons as in the case of two hexes) due to positioning difficulty and the importance of direction.
A creature size of 4 cells is much more convenient than a creature of 7 hexes. It has a good usable area, only 4 times larger than a creature occupying one cell, and its effective area is 4 cells (not 7, as in the case of hexes).
It's clear that this doesn't solve the attack distance problem (it was solved by other means - moving closer to the required distance and covering it with a special effect). But it solves the problem of placing two large creatures side by side and the effective use of arena space.
Let's see what happens next; here is a frame from the FPP version:
Small creatures are almost invisible on this arena - if it weren't for the number "100" in the top left next to the peasant, he might not even be noticed. As seen, we have large, bright, and beautiful creatures in our game, much more detailed than in previous games of the series.
And since we have large beautiful creatures, we want to show them so that the player can examine them; accordingly, one large arena is not a good option.
In the early stages of the game, the hero's army is small - a few different creatures, most often small (occupying one cell), and he fights small groups and simple creatures. Later, he gets large (4-cell) creatures, which are clearly visible on current arenas (they act as a focus). So it was decided to use two arena sizes. For early battles with a small army - a small arena, and for battles with a large army - the current one. An image of the then-current arena can be seen slightly above, and the small one below:
This decision was made long before FPP; this is a frame from the same version, just from a different battle. In this way, we solved almost all problems but created one new one - the balance of these two arenas. Either there needs to be a "Move" parameter that changes between arenas (either presented as two different parameters or simply changing - in both cases, the solution is clunky), or in some cases it will be advantageous to use one arena over another. We'll have to devise complex laws for arena appearance to minimize abuse of this system.
We finally abandoned this system late, around autumn 2005. And moved to a single arena (except for sieges, as a siege is a special case where the scale of the Castle needs to be shown, so we continued to use the large arena for it). The size of this arena was 8 by 10 tiles.
There were no problems with this arena: creatures are clearly visible, battlefield tactics are present, and it plays great. But then closed, and later open beta testing of the game began. Our beloved fans cried out "Arena is too small!!!", and - whined (as one person from our team put it - a very appropriate word) for 2 more tiles. They managed to scare the publisher so much that he made a forceful decision to add 2 tiles in length and width, thus the arena took its current size - 10x12 tiles.
As can be noticed, the problem of small creatures returned, but not in such a vivid form (look at the little demon in the top right corner). It should be noted that increasing the field does not increase the player's tactical opportunities, as many fans believe; it... decreases them. Since the value of one cell decreases, the margin for error becomes larger, meaning the battle becomes slightly less dependent on the player's tactics. It is also clear that changes in arena sizes led to changes in combat mechanics, which required additional refinements and rebalancing.
The example of arenas clearly shows how the introduction of a third dimension led to very large changes affecting the entire combat system in the game. But equally significant changes affected other aspects as well.
Info from site http://www.dtf.ru
1 more message remains)...
Legend:
* Light-colored hexes denote adjacent cells;
* Dark ones - hexes occupied by the creature;
* The circle denotes the usable area; the creature must be inscribed within it if we want to avoid overlaps between creatures on a static image;
* The line from the boundary of the circle to the center of an adjacent hex is the distance at which a strike should land to avoid deaths by heart attack (the weapon swept past) or brutal violence (the implement went straight through).
For a creature two hexes in size, the diagram will look like this:
As we can see, there are two options:
* A round creature - the usable area of such a creature is very small, and there are already problems with attack distances;
* An oval creature - the usable area is larger, but there are many problems with attack distances - it's enough to compare diagonal and horizontal attacks. Additionally, such a creature is not universal (due to a lack of central symmetry); controlling such a creature on the battlefield and choosing a position for it is very difficult (especially considering that the direction of the creature on the field indicates its affiliation as "friend" or "foe").
For a three-hex sized creature, the diagram will take the following form:
As seen, the usable area is very small (it seems slightly larger than a one-hex creature - in reality, it's obvious that the creature's area increased by 1.33 times), while problems with attack distance are quite high - just compare the bottom two segments.
Specifically, why we talk so much about the usable area of a creature:
In this example, two creatures occupying 3 hexes each stand side by side. Visually, the two creatures will stand far enough apart that a passage the width of another such creature will be visible between them, but due to the occupied hexes, no one will be able to pass through. If a player plays with the grid turned off - which is an option - they won't understand why they can't pass.
And finally, an example of a truly large creature:
Here there are minor problems with attack distances and no problems with usable area; however, the creature itself occupies 5.33 times more than a one-hex creature (and 7 times more game area). The difference becomes very large, the creature becomes very easy to block on the battlefield, it will look imposing, but playing with it will be very difficult.
But the main problem arises with long and stretched creatures (for example, riders on horses). They occupy a visually very small usable area. In the case of hexes, we are forced to use the largest creature template for them, resulting in a huge difference in attack distances and a massive blocked space on the battlefield despite visual emptiness.
Based on all the above, the decision was made to move the field to a square grid. At the same time, obviously, we took a step away from the series' legacy. Oh, how many times during the project's development could one hear "bring back the hexes"... But the transition to 3D required exactly this change. Squares are not devoid of all the mentioned problems, but the difference is very significant.
Let's look at a creature occupying one square; the legend remains the same:
It was decided not to use creatures sized 2 by 1 (for the same reasons as in the case of two hexes) due to positioning difficulty and the importance of direction.
A creature size of 4 cells is much more convenient than a creature of 7 hexes. It has a good usable area, only 4 times larger than a creature occupying one cell, and its effective area is 4 cells (not 7, as in the case of hexes).
It's clear that this doesn't solve the attack distance problem (it was solved by other means - moving closer to the required distance and covering it with a special effect). But it solves the problem of placing two large creatures side by side and the effective use of arena space.
Let's see what happens next; here is a frame from the FPP version:
Small creatures are almost invisible on this arena - if it weren't for the number "100" in the top left next to the peasant, he might not even be noticed. As seen, we have large, bright, and beautiful creatures in our game, much more detailed than in previous games of the series.
And since we have large beautiful creatures, we want to show them so that the player can examine them; accordingly, one large arena is not a good option.
In the early stages of the game, the hero's army is small - a few different creatures, most often small (occupying one cell), and he fights small groups and simple creatures. Later, he gets large (4-cell) creatures, which are clearly visible on current arenas (they act as a focus). So it was decided to use two arena sizes. For early battles with a small army - a small arena, and for battles with a large army - the current one. An image of the then-current arena can be seen slightly above, and the small one below:
This decision was made long before FPP; this is a frame from the same version, just from a different battle. In this way, we solved almost all problems but created one new one - the balance of these two arenas. Either there needs to be a "Move" parameter that changes between arenas (either presented as two different parameters or simply changing - in both cases, the solution is clunky), or in some cases it will be advantageous to use one arena over another. We'll have to devise complex laws for arena appearance to minimize abuse of this system.
We finally abandoned this system late, around autumn 2005. And moved to a single arena (except for sieges, as a siege is a special case where the scale of the Castle needs to be shown, so we continued to use the large arena for it). The size of this arena was 8 by 10 tiles.
There were no problems with this arena: creatures are clearly visible, battlefield tactics are present, and it plays great. But then closed, and later open beta testing of the game began. Our beloved fans cried out "Arena is too small!!!", and - whined (as one person from our team put it - a very appropriate word) for 2 more tiles. They managed to scare the publisher so much that he made a forceful decision to add 2 tiles in length and width, thus the arena took its current size - 10x12 tiles.
As can be noticed, the problem of small creatures returned, but not in such a vivid form (look at the little demon in the top right corner). It should be noted that increasing the field does not increase the player's tactical opportunities, as many fans believe; it... decreases them. Since the value of one cell decreases, the margin for error becomes larger, meaning the battle becomes slightly less dependent on the player's tactics. It is also clear that changes in arena sizes led to changes in combat mechanics, which required additional refinements and rebalancing.
The example of arenas clearly shows how the introduction of a third dimension led to very large changes affecting the entire combat system in the game. But equally significant changes affected other aspects as well.
Info from site http://www.dtf.ru
1 more message remains)...
Евангелие от Иоанна, 1.5: Lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Свет во тьме светит, и тьма не объяла его.