SEV: Taking me to the edge of sanity

Slick · #1 December 3rd, 2006, 05:26 PM

See, that's the thing. When a kooky theory conflicts with reality, it doesn't need to be argued. Hex map games (board games) have been around since well before your were born and most of them are still around. They sell just fine. They aren't wierd-looking. They are actually more natural looking and they map an area most efficiently for polygonal mapping. This is why you find hex grids in nature, but not square grids (honeycombs, crystal structure; there are many examples). The only thing more efficient is free movement. Yes, of course, these games are desinged for the masses, who else would they be designed for? But are you really trying to say that people wouldn't buy a hex map game because it is "wierd-looking"? Or are you trying to say that programmers fear a creating "weird-looking" product and fear that the "masses" wouldn't like it? That makes no sense at all. If the programmer was so worried about how it looked, he could easily use whichever grid system he chooses and not make the grid viewable, but we don't see that either; most grid games allow turning on the grid.

Fyron · #2 December 3rd, 2006, 07:53 PM

Kooky theory? Geeze, sorry for hazarding a guess... Can you point out any mass-market (PC) games that used hexes? All I can think of use floating point or squares.

Anyways, this is all tangential to the point that hex grids don't necessarily require any more computational power than square grids...

President_Elect_Shang · #3 December 3rd, 2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
Can you point out any mass-market games that used hexes?

Heroscape; but I agree the hex should be better than the square.

Phoenix-D · #4 December 3rd, 2006, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
Kooky theory? Geeze, sorry for hazarding a guess... Can you point out any mass-market (PC) games that used hexes? All I can think of use floating point or squares.

Almost every wargame ever made?

Fyron · #5 December 3rd, 2006, 08:32 PM

"mass-market" is an important qualifier there. Wargames are generally even more niche than TBS space opera games.

Possum · #6 December 3rd, 2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
Kooky theory? Geeze, sorry for hazarding a guess... Can you point out any mass-market (PC) games that used hexes? All I can think of use floating point or squares.

Anyways, this is all tangential to the point that hex grids don't necessarily require any more computational power than square grids...

Panzer General used a hex grid

Possum · #7 December 3rd, 2006, 08:35 PM

OMG, I think Fyron might be about to lose an argument!

Quick, call the Guiness book!

Fyron · #8 December 3rd, 2006, 08:41 PM

Eh? I just said I couldn't think of any; I didn't say there weren't any. The argument was about computational efficiency anyways...

Possum · #9 December 3rd, 2006, 08:58 PM

Just teasing you, bro

I personally don't have a clue which uses more resources for pathing calculations. But my personal prejudice is strong.

To me, hexgrids look "right" and "professional"

To me, square grids look "cheap", "cheesy", amateurish", and just plain "wrong".

Hey, I said it was prejudice, didn't I?

Raapys · #10 December 3rd, 2006, 09:26 PM

I don't think it's necessarily the hexgrid that makes it slower. The problem seems to be that the game is recalculating the entire travel path each hex a ship move, instead of only doing it when encountering something that demands a path recalculation( i.e. an enemy ship blocking a warp point or occupying a hex in the middle of your travel route comes into sensor range, preventing your ship from moving further, therefor requiring recalculation of the path ).