stefanhendriks Posted August 16, 2005 Author Share Posted August 16, 2005 rofl.I do understand that in abstract distances the units are vertically moving shorter then diagonally, but since we use a squared based game this is not a big drawback. Its just that visually it does not look 100% right.if you want an engine doing no squares, i'd say, its 'almost not possible'. It IS possible ofcourse, though its not handy and hard to code. (especially a path finder). I can imagine an engine where you can freely put tiles on , does not matter size and such. I can imagine how to code such a thing, but it aint easy. Not my intention either ;) Anyway....In D2 afaik, the units move to all directions as fast. So does D2TM.I agree that D2TM should have more ingredients so bad planned attacks have consequences, instead of the RA style: The more units the more chance you win... I hate such tactics. It should be different. Like, take position A out with launchers, attack B with trikes, for distractions of turrets, rush in some tanks then etc.I was taking chess as a figure of speach, as mr Fliblle explained.I think good PLAYING gameplay is more important then good LOOKING gameplay. Or did you mean that ant? :)Good thinking here btw. I thought you mentioned (ant) you where working on a document how to get a 'good/nice' physics combat system? If it is simple enough to implement (ie, not having dozens of variables, etc, etc). I am pretty interested ofcourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.