Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(+1)

Hi! Thanks for the question. Going with squares instead of hexes for LT boils down to squares making programming many, many aspects of the game significantly easier. I did a serious dive into the possibility of doing a different grid system early on and came away with the conclusion that paying the Hex Tax would be a large enough drain on production time to not be worth it – we would have had to cut other features like destructible terrain, the user-facing map editor, or line of sight previews while choosing targets.

In particular, calculating line of sight is extremely non-trivial in a 3D voxel space, and all the best algorithms for doing so have been done with square grids. It would have also made calculating texture bleed between voxels (the effect where some grass can extend across a boundary into a dirt tile) extremely difficult for the engine we have.

I know that most tabletop Lancer games are played on hexes and squares makes diagonals a little funky, but like Airatome1 said, the game was designed to be grid-agnostic (see the Black Witch’s PCP for a fossil of it being originally designed for square grids). Lancer is explicitly not designed to be a simulation, so I’m comfortable letting the rules bend what’s geometrically sound.

(6 edits) (-1)

Not a little funky IMO. Very funky. I don't think I'm in the minority in believing that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LancerRPG/comments/mactxi/hex_or_grid/

15.5% prefer Grids over Hexes. And I wouldn't be surprised if only 15.5% of that 15.5% range with diagonals as 1:1. So your decision is aligned with like 2.4% of Lancer players. The rest use D&D style diagonals cost 1.5, round down. One, two-three, four, five-six etc.

EDIT: Repeating my comment above because I don't agree with your interpretation of the game rules. They only allow diagonal distortion on movement, not attack range.

-Pg 64 RAW, range is range. So get out your ruler. Diagonals are only mentioned in regards to *movement* pg 62.-

EDIT2: Also, you don't need to use hexagons. You can use the Midpoint Circle Algorithm and keep a grid.  Here's godot-rgmap on github looks to have already implemented what you'll need so you can crib the code (MIT license) https://github.com/alex-karev/godot-rgmap   and a youtube link 

(+1)
  1. Having sloppy significant digit hygiene makes me less likely to listen to what you’re saying here - you can’t be pulling percentages out of thin air (“15.5% of 15.5%”) and still be including decimal places as a way to sound authoritative.

  2. It’s not about player preference for the TTRPG. I use hexes in my own game too. They’re fun. Nobody is arguing they’re not. It’s about what is feasible to do for a indie video game adaptation.

  3. Are you suggesting use near-circles for range but 1:1 for movement? So like diagonally 10 spaces is out of range of an assault rifle but within range for a speed 5 move+boost? I don’t think that’s a game that would be good. And if we tried doing circular square movement, we’d have to start answering questions like “what if they do it as a series of 1-step moves?” The edge cases are not trivial. The only other realistic alternative is no-diagonals like in the original web demo or Icon. I’m more open to that but I would need a UX reason eg making it easier to learn for me players.

(-2)

1. I linked to a Reddit poll that 89/574 (so 15.5%) preferred grids over hexes. I'm guessing there might be a misunderstanding because you didn't click through that link and I didn't clearly reference it as my source?

2. I hear you on cost/benefit and agree. I'd recommend a poll or something to see what people think. In my opinion if the game is rated zero to 10, this is a hard -1 to the final score. My opinion might be off in the weeds. Or it might be mainstream. It's possible you're applying resources to something you believe is more important, but that people who play the game disagree. I think I'm up to 32 in terms of successful missions in my latest saved game so be assured that my opinion on this has been refined; diagonals=non-diagonals is bad. Any improvement is welcome.

3. I vote yes near circles for ranging and sensors is a better game even if movement is not. The game is noticeably distorted around diagonals as it is right now. Your comment of "I don’t think that’s a game that would be good" in regards to diagonals=non-diagonals on movement only....I'm not sure how to respond to.  From my perspective it would be an improvement. I take it you're disagreeing?