3.4, 64x64 tiles and MAX_SIGHT/MAX_RANGE

[fizzix]

The major addition to 3.4 has been Shockbolt's 64x64 tiles. However, 64x64 tiles, as pretty as they are, make for some gameplay difficulties. Specifically, if you have 1024 pixel range (a typical vertical range for a good monitor) then you can only show 16 squares of 64 pixel height. That leaves a lot of stuff offscreen. If you use the squished set of 32x32 pixels you can see 15 squares in either direction, so that's a little more reasonable. However in both cases you can't see as far as the MAX_SIGHT which is how far @ can see, or MAX_RANGE which is how far away Kavlax needs to be to gravity breath you to oblivion.

We currently have MAX_SIGHT and MAX_RANGE both at 20, which is a bit excessive. It didn't used to be 20, it used to be 16 (i think) and was changed to 20 because you could shoot with Umbar farther than you could cast a spell, or farther than a monster could interact.

I want to reduce MAX_SIGHT and MAX_RANGE for 3.4, specifically I want MAX_RANGE to be such that you can't get offscreened from a centered position with 32x32 tiles (64x64 tiles are impossible to accommodate, for this without some major gameplay thoughts.)

For this reason, I'm thinking of reducing MAX_SIGHT/RANGE to about 13 or so for 3.4. This will probably be the only major gameplay change that is not in the dev versions. And since it's somewhat major, I'd like some thoughts.

[Susramanian]

ToME did the same thing when it adopted Shockbolt's 64x64 tiles, but I think it went down to a visibility range of 10. I thought it would be quite radical and feel very strange, but I barely noticed, even playing with 16x16 ascii (which was still cut down to a visibility range of 10). Sort of strange that so drastic and fundamental a change would be so imperceptible, but a nice surprise.

[Magnate]

MAX_RANGE used to be 18; MAX_SIGHT was always 20 AFAIK.

Very happy to see them both reduced, but why not choose 15 for SIGHT and 14 for RANGE? Those should still be accommodated in a 1024-high screen with 32x32 tiles, shouldn't they?

It's also worth noting that RANGE 14 is the current max for x4 launchers - I think it would be good not to go below this if poss. Since launchers better than x4 are very rare, I don't think it matters that they don't get any extra range.

[Derakon]

Why shouldn't we just cap the max range on launchers at MAX_RANGE? No reason to let the player attack monsters when they can't attack back.

[Magnate]

Why shouldn't we just cap the max range on launchers at MAX_RANGE? No reason to let the player attack monsters when they can't attack back.

Indeed, I wouldn't suggest anything else. My point is that a x4 launcher ought to have greater range than a x3 launcher. But beyond x4 it's not worth worrying about.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

I've been trying to make range more relevant in Fay.

For bow range to really matter in play, it needs to be quite short. In my current dev version short bows have a range 7 and longbows 10. Even that is usually more than enough.

I wanted to leave some room for flight arrows and range enchantments to make a difference.

Of course I've altered the dungeon design quite a bit. Maybe in Vanilla the situation is different.

[Magnate]

I've been trying to make range more relevant in Fay.

For bow range to really matter in play, it needs to be quite short. In my current dev version short bows have a range 7 and longbows 10. Even that is usually more than enough.

I wanted to leave some room for flight arrows and range enchantments to make a difference.

Of course I've altered the dungeon design quite a bit. Maybe in Vanilla the situation is different.

I'm not sure anybody's thought about it since the launcher ranges were first introduced, whenever that was. There has been an open ticket to reduce range and LOS for a long time, ever since people first realised that playing on handhelds would require it. Bringing all the launcher ranges down by two (or more) wouldn't be a problem, IMO.

[Mikko Lehtinen]

You may want to reduce spell range and monster range, too!

[Shockbolt]

And/or make levels have more rooms/shorter corridors

[Nick]

FA 1.1 has a short range mode, where MAX_SIGHT is 10 (and MAX_RANGE is the same by defeault, IIRC). I've only played it a little; it didn't seem all that different.

[fizzix]

Indeed, I wouldn't suggest anything else. My point is that a x4 launcher ought to have greater range than a x3 launcher. But beyond x4 it's not worth worrying about.

I actually don't mind x4 and x3 launchers having the same range, after all you do get an extra die damage, and that seems like enough compensation.

@Mikko - If I understand correctly, spell range and monster ranges are handled under MAX_RANGE. Launcher range is not, but it's an easy fix to make it capped at MAX_RANGE. Do I understand correctly?

@Shockbolt - remaking the dungeon is a hard process and would also require remaking things like special (moated) rooms. Allowing for a short-range mode like Nick suggests is probably easier, but will likely have to wait for the next version.

There are yet other options that allow playing with a long range with a small amount of visible tiles. Specifically, you could put an indication on the perimeter of the screen that a visible monster is there. Or you could devote the outer rim of tiles to visible off/screen monsters. I have no idea how this would look, or even if it's a good idea. It would also be impossible to get working for 3.4

[PowerDiver]

MAX_SIGHT needs to be at least 2 more than the maximum distance for ranged monster attacks [e.g. drolem breath] if you don't believe in unavoidable instakills.

Personally, I think MAX_SIGHT should be increased, not decreased. If you stand in the corner of a moat of a magically lit standard moated room, IMO you should be able to see the far wall. This has nothing to do with game balance. Just, to me, a room is a unit and should be treated as a whole whenever possible.

If you reduce MAX_SIGHT, it will not be possible to clear pits using a staff of power from one of the sides. Whether that change is a plus or a minus is a matter for debate. If you reduce MAX_RANGE, beam spells such as light or elec beams become significantly less efficient. I think the player should be rewarded for setting up as long a beam as possible, but the opposing view is not wholly without merit.

If you are addressing these issues, you ought also to address the approach that dispelling uses MAX_SIGHT rather than MAX_RANGE to determine which monsters are affected. My guess is that this was done due to simplicity of coding. My wife tells me MAX_SIGHT is clearly the correct choice, that any vampire that can see the priest's holy symbol should be affected, but I believe the point is open to debate.

If the whole point is to use larger tiles, I think you are going too far. One should decide the gameplay issues, and then decide how much needs to be on the screen, and then do some arithmetic to determine the maximum tile size. Let the best gameplay determine the tile size, rather than making the tile size determine gameplay.

[fph]

1024 pixel range (a typical vertical range for a good monitor)

It's still a conservative estimate: it's becoming more and more difficult to find a laptop with more than 768 pixels of vertical real estate.

[Magnate]

FA 1.1 has a short range mode, where MAX_SIGHT is 10 (and MAX_RANGE is the same by defeault, IIRC). I've only played it a little; it didn't seem all that different.

How's that working out for unavoidable instakills? When I made MAX_RANGE equal to MAX_SIGHT in 3.2 Timo had a fit, but it doesn't seem to have killed anyone yet.

[fizzix]

MAX_SIGHT needs to be at least 2 more than the maximum distance for ranged monster attacks [e.g. drolem breath] if you don't believe in unavoidable instakills.

Personally, I think MAX_SIGHT should be increased, not decreased. If you stand in the corner of a moat of a magically lit standard moated room, IMO you should be able to see the far wall. This has nothing to do with game balance. Just, to me, a room is a unit and should be treated as a whole whenever possible.

If you reduce MAX_SIGHT, it will not be possible to clear pits using a staff of power from one of the sides. Whether that change is a plus or a minus is a matter for debate. If you reduce MAX_RANGE, beam spells such as light or elec beams become significantly less efficient. I think the player should be rewarded for setting up as long a beam as possible, but the opposing view is not wholly without merit.

If you are addressing these issues, you ought also to address the approach that dispelling uses MAX_SIGHT rather than MAX_RANGE to determine which monsters are affected. My guess is that this was done due to simplicity of coding. My wife tells me MAX_SIGHT is clearly the correct choice, that any vampire that can see the priest's holy symbol should be affected, but I believe the point is open to debate.

If the whole point is to use larger tiles, I think you are going too far. One should decide the gameplay issues, and then decide how much needs to be on the screen, and then do some arithmetic to determine the maximum tile size. Let the best gameplay determine the tile size, rather than making the tile size determine gameplay.

I think these are all good points. Seeing the whole room is impossible because of rooms like the DIVISI greater vault which is about 1/4 of max level size from corner to corner. This does mean that you could have monsters on the other side of a large hall that you couldn't see. I seem to remember you hated this about DJA, but I'm not convinced that this is inherently bad. Regardless, changing MAX_SIGHT is less of a concern, it can remain 20 or increase.

I'm ok with allowing MAX_SIGHT to be adjusted, so that you are guaranteed to see everything in sight in a room, provided that you can see one square into the room. This seems like too much of a departure for 3.4 though, maybe too much for V altogether.

MAX_RANGE is really the problem. Luckily there are both player benefits and drawbacks to a lowered value. The benefit is that monsters have to get closer to you to cast spells or breathe on you, the downside is that you have to get closer to monsters, or can't affect as many as you could previously. All in all, I don't think the changes will make a significant difference on the quality of gameplay, even if they do have an effect on the substance. I certainly am planning on testing this, and will readily admit it if I'm wrong.

I would like MAX_RANGE to be the case for all spell effects, including dispels. Although I'm loath to make unnecessary changes in 3.4 even if it's an improvement.

As for the last paragraph. The motivation is not solely based on tiles, although they are a major issue. We'd certainly like the game to be playable with 64x64 tiles, although the path forward is not clear yet. The motivation is also due to smaller playing surfaces like phones and other portable devices. The idea I had is that lowering MAX_RANGE, even to something as low as 12-14, will not have a huge difference on gameplay, so we might as well change to accommodate both the new media and the new displays. *IF* there is a significant change to gameplay, then it will have to wait until 3.5, unfortunately. Perhaps a player option for a far shorter range (7-8) is desirable, and if so we can try implementing this, even possibly as an option in 3.4.

Other test-players and feedback are of course welcome. Right now I'm stuck on some odd errors that come when lowering MAX_RANGE, in an obscure piece of code that I can't quite fathom, so I haven't been able to push changes and test-play myself yet.