[Gameplay] - Moving diagonally sometimes costs 1, sometimes 2 AP

[nomm]

Bug Submission:

Category: Gameplay

Platform: PC

Issue Title: Moving diagonally sometimes costs 1, sometimes 2 AP

Issue Description: As described in title. Movement costs for diagonal movement seem inconsistent.

Screenshots 1 and 2: Moving diagonally and orthogonally cost same amount of AP

Screenshots 3 and 4: Moving diagonally costs 1 AP more than orthogonally

May not be a bug, may be working as intended, but if so I think you need to include some information on how movement costs are calculated, because I cannot for the life of me figure out what rule it follows.

Steps to Reproduce: Happens all the time when moving agents.

[the truthseeker]

I could be wrong on this, but (like the old D&D rules) the first square is one the second square is two and it cycles like that for diagonal movement point costs. It's just there's not 1.5 movement tracking method, so this is how it's done. 

[nomm]

Hm. Going to have to pay attention to see if that's how it does it.

 

Also, I forgot to click the "attach files" button after choosing all the files to attach. Again.

 

[rooks]

Moving diagonally does cost more AP (root 2) than moving orthogonally (which always costs simply 1).  Because the UI will only show you the rounded numbers, it may look like sometimes moving diagonally costs 1 or 2, depending on how much actual AP the unit has under the hood.  Hope that clears things up.

 

[nomm]

Ok, that explains things. Had to make it root 2, 1.5 wasn't good enough?

I suppose if you sprint with a stealth 4 Deckard and stim him up a bit, it would actually make a 1 square difference

[the truthseeker]

Oh root two, somebody has a scientific calculator in their pocket and just isn't happy to see me! Wait that came out creepy. I mean, that explains it! 

[Strelock]

And all that time i thought that moving diagonally costs 2 AP

Pythagorean theorem...

Maybe just make it 2-1-2-1-... (since the first squere is 2 AP (1.4 = 2, 2.8 = 3)) and somehow tell it to the player?

[ColHathi]

Yeah, I hope you plan on telling the player that moving like that costs 1,414213562373095 AP each time. But I also hope that you change it altogether, because this just isn't reliable (unless you have a calculator around).

[Cyberboy2000]

Yeah, I hope you plan on telling the player that moving like that costs 1,414213562373095 AP each time. But I also hope that you change it altogether, because this just isn't reliable (unless you have a calculator around)..

 

In what way is it unreliable? Hovering over a tile tells you how much AP you will have left after moving there. Even when it does make a difference, you actually win one AP, not lose.

Why change something that already works?

[ColHathi]

In what way is it unreliable? Hovering over a tile tells you how much AP you will have left after moving there.

Why change something that already works?

 

Approximately, and it doesn't work for me. Maybe reliable wasn't the right word. What I'm getting at is I can't work with 1,414213562373095 when I'm trying to predict whether or not I'll be able to move such and such. If I've already moved some tiles, but I can't remember how many tiles I've moved, I can't see how much AP I actually have left. I don't mind that it's a little bit more expensive if I can count on it, and I do mean literally. I can't count with 1,414213562373095. And this is what I meant before, that I need to be able to rely on having this many or that many points left after an action. Not what I approximately have.

[5thHorseman]

Approximately, and it doesn't work for me. Maybe reliable wasn't the right word. What I'm getting at is I can't work with 1,414213562373095 when I'm trying to predict whether or not I'll be able to move such and such. If I've already moved some tiles, but I can't remember how many tiles I've moved, I can't see how much AP I actually have left.

It tells you on the left side of the screen how much AP you have left. It also shows you on the map every tile your agent can reach. I thought it was 2-1-2-1 per move, actually. I never noticed I sometimes got a "bonus" square due to it being 1.4(blablabla) ap per diagonal move.

Assuming it goes 2-1-2-1 (ie, 1.5) is accurate up to the 4th diagonal move.

Assuming it's actually 1.4 is accurate up to the 11th diagonal move, which would actually take you 16ap instead of 15ap.

Assuming it's actually 1.41 is accurate up to the 23rd diagonal move, which would actually take you 32ap instead of 33ap.

If you need it to be more accurate than this, then you're playing with far better augments and items than I've ever found.

Here's a handy chart:

 

Moves	AP1	12	33	44	65	76	87	108	119	1310	1411	1612	1713	1814	2015	2116	2317	2418	2519	2720	2821	3022	3123	3324	3425	3526	3727	3828	4029	4130	42

[ColHathi]

It tells you on the left side of the screen how much AP you have left. It also shows you on the map every tile your agent can reach. I thought it was 2-1-2-1 per move, actually. I never noticed I sometimes got a "bonus" square due to it being 1.4(blablabla) ap per diagonal move.

Assuming it goes 2-1-2-1 (ie, 1.5) is accurate up to the 4th diagonal move.

Assuming it's actually 1.4 is accurate up to the 11th diagonal move, which would actually take you 16ap instead of 15ap.

Assuming it's actually 1.41 is accurate up to the 23rd diagonal move, which would actually take you 32ap instead of 33ap.

If you need it to be more accurate than this, then you're playing with far better augments and items than I've ever found.

 

Yeah thanks, I know it shows APPROXIMATELY how much I have left on the left side. Look, imagine you're trying to figure out whether or not you're gonna be able to go somewhere in your next turn. But you can't know for sure if it's gonna reach because you don't have a calculator on hand to check each turn in the route you want to check.

So on top of wanting to know the exact amount of AP I'm gonna spend or have left, I'd like to also know I don't have to use a calculator to see how much AP I'm gonna need in the scenario above.

[5thHorseman]

I guess I can see how someone would want that, but I can't see how I ever would. I just don't micromanage down to that level and don't find the concept of it fun.

I just assume that every 2 diagonal moves takes 3 ap, count it up, and if I have it, great. If not, then I figure I don't have it. From now on I'll add an extra 1 AP if I go more than 4 diagonal squares but that's just because I did the math already and probably won't forget.

Are the number of times you need to go more than 4 diagonal squares AND reach a single exact square of the only safety possible THAT frequent that whipping out a calculator or consulting a chart would be THAT terrible to do?

[ColHathi]

I suppose not. As long as it is conveyed to the player that it takes ~1.4 moves to move diagonally, it doesn't matter that much. But I'd still prefer it were 1.5 or even 2.

[Daeid]

I'll just continue to go by the 2-1 rule. So far this was correct in every situation where I actually needed to count movement points. If I ever run into an unlikely fringe case where I need to count APs for a diagonal move across 5 or more tiles then I'll be happy to have one AP more than expected .

[Cyberboy2000]

Wierd, apparently you quoted my post before I edited it.

 

I think there's been a mistake, or I might just be misunderstanding what you are saying.

When it does make a one tile difference, you win one AP, not lose. How can that mess you up? Wouldn't it be a happy surprise to find out that you got one extra AP?

[ColHathi]

I'd be happier if I didn't have to be surprised at all.

 

My biggest gripe with this whole thing is that currently you have to look outside the game to understand how the movement points work. But I wouldn't mind knowing whether I was gonna have that 1 AP or not either, since as we probably all know, 1 AP can do a lot.

[5thHorseman]

In game the best way to do it would be a second circle, around the tile you're hovering over, that shows you how far your agent can go NEXT TURN if he or she were to stop in that tile.

Maybe you have to hold down SHIFT or something to see it.

 

I think there's been a mistake, or I might just be misunderstanding what you are saying.

When it does make a one tile difference, you win one AP, not lose. How can that mess you up? Wouldn't it be a happy surprise to find out that you got one extra AP?

If you assume 1-2-1-2 (aka 1.5 tiles per diagonal move) then yes, the difference is always in your favor (if not the odds). However, if you're going for more accuracy and assume 1.4, 1.41, etc then whenever there's a difference it'll always be against you because you're always assuming you move LESS.

If only root 2 was 1.45xxxxxxx then it'd be better

EDIT: One more quick thing. Most of that chart business I put above was to show that you really only need 1.4, not 1.41421356237309504880168872420969807856967187537694807317667973799 or even 1.41 1.4 isn't THAT much harder to do the math for in your head than 1.5, and again I ask, how often do you move 11 times DIAGONALLY in a single turn?

[ColHathi]

In game the best way to do it would be a second circle, around the tile you're hovering over, that shows you how far your agent can go NEXT TURN if he or she were to stop in that tile.

Maybe you have to hold down SHIFT or something to see it.

 

That's actually a good idea. I'd be for that.

[Cyberboy2000]

In game the best way to do it would be a second circle, around the tile you're hovering over, that shows you how far your agent can go NEXT TURN if he or she were to stop in that tile.

Maybe you have to hold down SHIFT or something to see it.

 

That's actually a really good idea, even when diagonal movement is not playing a role.

I would really like to see something like that.

[warfreak2]

Wierd, apparently you quoted my post before I edited it.

 

I think there's been a mistake, or I might just be misunderstanding what you are saying.

When it does make a one tile difference, you win one AP, not lose. How can that mess you up? Wouldn't it be a happy surprise to find out that you got one extra AP?

 

Sorry to revive a long-dead post, but here's a situation which happened to me today. Begin with 8 AP at square A. The path from A to C takes 8 AP, beginning with a diagonal step to square B. The interface shows me that this diagonal step to B costs 2 AP, so I infer that B to C costs the other 6 AP. Therefore I took two orthogonal steps (via a corporate safe) to B, leaving me with 6 AP, which turned out to be insufficient to reach C.

[Ocelost]

imagine you're trying to figure out whether or not you're gonna be able to go somewhere in your next turn. But you can't know for sure if it's gonna reach because you don't have a calculator on hand to check each turn in the route you want to check.

 

It's also a problem when you want to move diagonally from hiding to peek through a door, and then back to your hiding spot (or another one). Hovering the cursor over your first stop will tell you how many AP would remain once your'e there, but won't tell you if that's enough to return to hiding on the same turn.

 

I like the idea of highlighting the squares within the still-reachable radius when you hover the cursor over a destination square. It's consistent with the targeting UI that's already used for grenades and the Ping program.

 

It might make sense to highlight two radii: one for squares reachable on the same turn and another for squares reachable on the next turn. I'm not sure if I'd show both at the same time or alternate between the two with a keypress.