Diagonal Movement in Roguelikes

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

My roguelike project is really starting to get off the ground. I wrote and
ditched a GDI+ tilemap control in favor of one that uses an orthographic
projection and Direct3D. I've got a basic dungeon generator in place and I
think it's time to get the player character(s) moving around. Which brings
me to my question. What do you guys think about diagonal movement in
roguelikes (as opposed to movement only in the cardinal directions)? Every
roguelike I've played has this, but I don't know why. Personally I find it a
pain as I play on a laptop with no number pad. So I'm thinking that I will
restrict movement to the four cardinal directions in my game so that people
can just use the arrow keys. Is there any legitimate gameplay reasons that I
might want 8-directional movement instead of 4? I can't really think of any
at the moment. The only thing I can think of at the moment is that it will
slightly increase my node count when I go and implement A* (a non-issue).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Concerning a roguelike without diagonal movement:

Go for it. I don't have a laptop, but I've played
roguelikes on laptops and it's inconvenient. I know
friends who don't even use the number pads on their
keyboards for roguelikes unless they really have to.
I guess this is because the arrow keys actually have
arrows printed on them (well, my numpad has these, too),
or maybe they like how easily three fingers navigate
the arrow keys.

Anyway, your game will have tactics alternative to those
in other roguelikes if you leave out diagonal movement.

-B. McQuern

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:41:29 -0400,
Shedletsky wrote:

> My roguelike project is really starting to get off the ground. I wrote and
> ditched a GDI+ tilemap control in favor of one that uses an orthographic
> projection and Direct3D. I've got a basic dungeon generator in place and I
> think it's time to get the player character(s) moving around. Which brings
> me to my question. What do you guys think about diagonal movement in
> roguelikes (as opposed to movement only in the cardinal directions)? Every
> roguelike I've played has this, but I don't know why. Personally I find it a
> pain as I play on a laptop with no number pad. So I'm thinking that I will
> restrict movement to the four cardinal directions in my game so that people
> can just use the arrow keys. Is there any legitimate gameplay reasons that I
> might want 8-directional movement instead of 4? I can't really think of any
> at the moment. The only thing I can think of at the moment is that it will
> slightly increase my node count when I go and implement A* (a non-issue).

Guess it's just a question of tradition. Nothing strong.
Also, roguelikes with weighted movement (ie. diagonals take more time) can
get close do euclidean metric, but weighted movement has it's drawbacks.

It may be also a question of intuition -- when I'm standing next to
a monster, I want to be able to attack it.

Anyways -- I can't see anything wrong with tryingcardinal movement only.


--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
(Uu) 3 Sigh!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Shedletsky wrote:
> My roguelike project is really starting to get off the ground. I wrote and
> ditched a GDI+ tilemap control in favor of one that uses an orthographic
> projection and Direct3D. I've got a basic dungeon generator in place and I
> think it's time to get the player character(s) moving around. Which brings
> me to my question. What do you guys think about diagonal movement in
> roguelikes (as opposed to movement only in the cardinal directions)? Every
> roguelike I've played has this, but I don't know why. Personally I find it a
> pain as I play on a laptop with no number pad. So I'm thinking that I will
> restrict movement to the four cardinal directions in my game so that people
> can just use the arrow keys. Is there any legitimate gameplay reasons that I
> might want 8-directional movement instead of 4? I can't really think of any
> at the moment. The only thing I can think of at the moment is that it will
> slightly increase my node count when I go and implement A* (a non-issue).

POWDER doesn't allow diagonal movement. This is largely because
entering diagonals on the GBA thumb pad is a bit imprecise for turn
based games.

It definitely changes the play style. However, the changes will be
integrated when you balance your game. POWDER also has the asymmetry
that you can zap spells in 8 directions or throw items in 8 directions,
but only melee attack in 4 directions. This makes the diagonal
position a "Free spell casting" direction. A neat effect is that 1
range spells are always useful as you can cast them before you enter
melee range.

There is one major exception to no-diagonal movement. Grid bugs, for
reasons related to Nethack, are the only creature allowed to move and
attack on diagonals.

I'd recommend playing POWDER a bit and seeing if the lack of diagonal
movement frustrates you. In my case, I find it relaxing to know I
don't have to remember to do diagonal moves. But then again, I lack
any number pads...
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <d9lblv$m29$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, "Shedletsky" <mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
>My roguelike project is really starting to get off the ground. I wrote and
>ditched a GDI+ tilemap control in favor of one that uses an orthographic
>projection and Direct3D. I've got a basic dungeon generator in place and I
>think it's time to get the player character(s) moving around. Which brings
>me to my question. What do you guys think about diagonal movement in
>roguelikes (as opposed to movement only in the cardinal directions)? Every
>roguelike I've played has this, but I don't know why.

Moraff's World, and possibly Powder, are orthographic only.

Alan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Ah Moraff's World. That was a great game. Though Moraff's Revenge had a lot
going for it too and lacked some of the clunkier extra features (like a
wilderness that took several minutes to generate).

"R. Alan Monroe" <amonroejj@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fbAve.15721$7X1.15708@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <d9lblv$m29$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, "Shedletsky"
> <mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>My roguelike project is really starting to get off the ground. I wrote and
>>ditched a GDI+ tilemap control in favor of one that uses an orthographic
>>projection and Direct3D. I've got a basic dungeon generator in place and I
>>think it's time to get the player character(s) moving around. Which brings
>>me to my question. What do you guys think about diagonal movement in
>>roguelikes (as opposed to movement only in the cardinal directions)? Every
>>roguelike I've played has this, but I don't know why.
>
> Moraff's World, and possibly Powder, are orthographic only.
>
> Alan
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"Shedletsky" <mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:

> My roguelike project is really starting to get off the ground. I
> wrote and ditched a GDI+ tilemap control in favor of one that uses
> an orthographic projection and Direct3D. I've got a basic dungeon
> generator in place and I think it's time to get the player
> character(s) moving around. Which brings me to my question. What
> do you guys think about diagonal movement in roguelikes (as
> opposed to movement only in the cardinal directions)? Every
> roguelike I've played has this, but I don't know why. Personally I
> find it a pain as I play on a laptop with no number pad. So I'm
> thinking that I will restrict movement to the four cardinal
> directions in my game so that people can just use the arrow keys.
> Is there any legitimate gameplay reasons that I might want
> 8-directional movement instead of 4? I can't really think of any
> at the moment. The only thing I can think of at the moment is that
> it will slightly increase my node count when I go and implement A*
> (a non-issue).

I can think of a problem. A common tactic is to run away from a monster
for some number of steps (because he's slightly slower, or to recover
your hp, etc), then attack. If there was no diagonal movement, you
could "run away" in a tight circle:
.... .... .... ....
.@m. .m.. .... ..@.
.... .@.. .m@. ..m.
.... .... .... ....
Ordinarily, you need special terrain (a pillar, a circular corridor) to
take advantage of to do this. Also, it makes getting surrounded much
less dangerous, and lets you safely fight in the doorway of a corridor
where you otherwise couldn't.

--
CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:42:08 -0400, "Shedletsky" <mylastname@stanford.edu>
wrote:

>Ah Moraff's World. That was a great game. Though Moraff's Revenge had a lot
>going for it too and lacked some of the clunkier extra features (like a
>wilderness that took several minutes to generate).

Wilderness didn't need that much time for generation - max was about 10-20
seconds on a 386/33-DX with no co-processor. Although there wasn't much
purpose for the wilderness aside from cycling the dungeon.

There was also the Dungeons of Unforgiving (sp?), considered the least
popular in the series. Basically, the game was too hard with stat drainers
and overpowered monsters appearing early.

>
>"R. Alan Monroe" <amonroejj@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fbAve.15721$7X1.15708@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> In article <d9lblv$m29$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, "Shedletsky"
>> <mylastname@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>My roguelike project is really starting to get off the ground. I wrote and
>>>ditched a GDI+ tilemap control in favor of one that uses an orthographic
>>>projection and Direct3D. I've got a basic dungeon generator in place and I
>>>think it's time to get the player character(s) moving around. Which brings
>>>me to my question. What do you guys think about diagonal movement in
>>>roguelikes (as opposed to movement only in the cardinal directions)? Every
>>>roguelike I've played has this, but I don't know why.
>>
>> Moraff's World, and possibly Powder, are orthographic only.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I think every ranged attack woud be more important than with diagonal
movement, but variety would be increased and limiting "lawnmower"
tactics is a good thing.

Tight circle chasing is fair and realistic, and it shouldn't happen
anyway: the best tactic for a slow chaser in a diagonal position is
standing still (and use a ranged attack if possible) to force the
faster creature to approach and be attacked, retreat and be cornered
or stand still too.

Surrounding by superior numbers of monsters is mitigated (only 4
attacks, not 8), allowing in some cases more monsters in a level and
less wall-hugging without risking disaster; being blocked is more
common (only 4 enemies or obstacles, not 8) but I think avoiding it
would be a nice tactical challenge.
For the player, being surrounded and getting out after killing a
monster is probably more rewarding than being surrounded and getting
out immediately with severe damage like in diagonal-movement games.

Lorenzo Gatti

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

"Wilderness didn't need that much time for generation - max was about
10-20
seconds on a 386/33-DX with no co-processor."

Wow that's some killer hardware. I didn't have anything like that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Wow. POWDER looks pretty cool. I will have to try it when I am not at
work. You bring up some good points. I also came up with the idea of
creating a special monster ability to move diagonally (for especially
agile monsters). What is the reasoning for allowing grid bugs to move
diagonally? Is it because they are *bugs* in the grid code?

Diagonal keys are a pretty big pain, so I think I'll go ahead and
continue as I started. Lorenzo below also brough up some good plusses
and minuses related to being surrounded. Have you found that these
balance out well in your game (being surrounded is less dangerous, but
happens more easily).

I was going to allow spell casting and ranged attacks to occur in any
direction (360 degrees). Because of the way my engine is structured
(built in D3D), rotating my projectile sprites is both trivial and
free. This will obviously make these attacks more powerful, so I will
tone down their damage/ect.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Telamon wrote:
> Wow. POWDER looks pretty cool. I will have to try it when I am not at
> work. You bring up some good points. I also came up with the idea of
> creating a special monster ability to move diagonally (for especially
> agile monsters). What is the reasoning for allowing grid bugs to move
> diagonally? Is it because they are *bugs* in the grid code?

Nethack has grid bugs which are the only monster that can't move on
diagonals. Since they were always my favorite monster from Nethack, I
figured they deserve a break in POWDER and reversed the rules.

> Diagonal keys are a pretty big pain, so I think I'll go ahead and
> continue as I started. Lorenzo below also brough up some good plusses
> and minuses related to being surrounded. Have you found that these
> balance out well in your game (being surrounded is less dangerous, but
> happens more easily).

I wouldn't say the two things cancel each other out. Rather, they
result in a different feel and different tactics. It does mean you can
likely make monsters stronger in melee as it is easy to set up a
one-on-one confrontation.

> I was going to allow spell casting and ranged attacks to occur in any
> direction (360 degrees). Because of the way my engine is structured
> (built in D3D), rotating my projectile sprites is both trivial and
> free. This will obviously make these attacks more powerful, so I will
> tone down their damage/ect.

I explicitly chose only 8 way missiles to keep the power of ranged
attacks down. An important question, however, is how you measure
distance. With 8 way movement, all points inside a square about the
player are equal walking distance. (Discounting using different
movement rates for diagonals, which is a bad idea, in my opinion) With
4 way, all points inside a diamond are equal distance. Thus, even with
360 degree targetting, you need to answer what the footprint of a range
one attack would be:

.X. XXX
X@X or X@X
.X. XXX

Another important consideration is whether you are allowed to shoot
past foes. If you are not, it must be clear to the player what path
the missile will take so they can tell if it might hit a friendly.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

jimrandomh wrote:

> I can think of a problem. A common tactic is to run away from a monster
> for some number of steps (because he's slightly slower, or to recover
> your hp, etc), then attack. If there was no diagonal movement, you
> could "run away" in a tight circle:
> .... .... .... ....
> .@m. .m.. .... ..@.
> .... .@.. .m@. ..m.
> .... .... .... ....

This is how it was in Moria (2.8.6?) - first roguelike I ever played,
before I knew it was a genre. It didn't stop it from being a great
game. Though in that case, the player could move diagonally, the
monsters couldn't. Whatever loopholes like this are introduced, it will
be accounted for in how you balance the rest of the difficulty level.
Perhaps your footsteps echo a lot, drawing monsters in if you run
around in one place for too long.

--jude hungerford.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 28 Jun 2005 06:28:10 -0700, "lichen678" <lichen678@popmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>jimrandomh wrote:
>
>> I can think of a problem. A common tactic is to run away from a monster
>> for some number of steps (because he's slightly slower, or to recover
>> your hp, etc), then attack. If there was no diagonal movement, you
>> could "run away" in a tight circle:
>> .... .... .... ....
>> .@m. .m.. .... ..@.
>> .... .@.. .m@. ..m.
>> .... .... .... ....
>
>This is how it was in Moria (2.8.6?) - first roguelike I ever played,
>before I knew it was a genre. It didn't stop it from being a great
>game. Though in that case, the player could move diagonally, the
>monsters couldn't.

Actually, the monsters were capable of diagonal movement. If the player
went far enough away, the monster would catch up just as quickly.

IIRC, the issue was the fact that it valued orthogonical movement that
allowed the circle trick. It's no different from the intellegent monsters
in ADOM favouring diagonal movement.

> Whatever loopholes like this are introduced, it will
>be accounted for in how you balance the rest of the difficulty level.
>Perhaps your footsteps echo a lot, drawing monsters in if you run
>around in one place for too long.


Probably not - sometimes, loopholes like these remain unconsidered as they
aren't discovered until later.