Hi-Res Wesnoth

[Kestenvarn]

What is going to happen when you have one of your giant units which fit into the big hexes and then you switch to the smaller hexes? Isn't this going to produce some problems? Or do we need two versions of those big units too?

Obviously we already have the smaller versions, this proposal only requires us to make larger ones of certain units.

[JW]

Our hexes are rather confused, if you haven't noticed - they're seen from an almost isometric perspective, but are taller than they are wide.

This is actually a little frustrating, though only when it's pointed out and I have to remember it.

Also, I never understood the HAPMA thing....all units are drawn to be 1 unit, but villages are 1 house and an elf can cover a whole forest....basically I understand it to mean: "ignore the discrepancy because we've already gone too far this way to go back."

If I had 3 wishes for Wesnoth, making the terrain art scaled to a unit-sized sense of scale would be wish #2 or #3.

[Aethaeryn]

What is going to happen when you have one of your giant units which fit into the big hexes and then you switch to the smaller hexes? Isn't this going to produce some problems? Or do we need two versions of those big units too?

Obviously we already have the smaller versions, this proposal only requires us to make larger ones of certain units.

Except if you wanted to make a new unit you suddenly have to be making 2 versions for it. And pixel art doesn't scale well, so they would have to be two hand-made versions.

This is actually a little frustrating, though only when it's pointed out and I have to remember it.

Also, I never understood the HAPMA thing....all units are drawn to be 1 unit, but villages are 1 house and an elf can cover a whole forest....basically I understand it to mean: "ignore the discrepancy because we've already gone too far this way to go back."

If I had 3 wishes for Wesnoth, making the terrain art scaled to a unit-sized sense of scale would be wish #2 or #3.

I agree. It would make the most sense that way, you could even have multi-hex units that make sense that way (obviously it would go for the worst movement and best defense like a snow/forest and if you can't fit you can't pass). That would fix that problem. Need a really powerful unit that is supposed to be really big? Have a 4-hex dragon. Yeah, it can be trapped - its size would be its weakness.

With HAMPA as it is though multi-hex units can't even be suggested because who has ever heard of a 2-mile-long dragon? But as it is, I guess we have to settle with the results of old creeping biggerism and have relatively small monsters. Multi-hex units are impossible and expanding the hexes like this suggestion leads to very empty hexes (not good for viewing battles or for RPGs).

[irrevenant]

Except if you wanted to make a new unit you suddenly have to be making 2 versions for it.

Only for giant units. The vast bulk of units are troll-sized or smaller and only 1 version is required for that.

Also, I never understood the HAPMA thing....all units are drawn to be 1 unit, but villages are 1 house and an elf can cover a whole forest....basically I understand it to mean: "ignore the discrepancy because we've already gone too far this way to go back."

I don't believe it's actually possible to standardise the scale. You'd end up with an area with a dozen terrain types within 200 metres.

The units are representations rather than literals, like playing pieces on a map. It's a bit weird, but easily understandable.

With HAMPA as it is though multi-hex units can't even be suggested because who has ever heard of a 2-mile-long dragon?

Multi-hex units would be pretty awkward to work with anyway. Does a particular hex of it need to be used to capture a village? Can you easily tell if it can sneak past an enemy ZoC or will it's tail be caught? etc.

[turin]

So, the only advantage of increasing the hex size is to get more room for large-scale units (which we're already going to get by allowing units to extend beyond the hex), at the expense of both ease of play and quality of graphics? And you excuse the loss of ease of play by saying that anyone who wants to can use the old system?

No. "Improvements" that don't actually improve should not be added as options. OAB not just because it's hard to implement the options, but because options, in and of themselves, are bad - they're essentially saying "we're too lazy to decide whether the game would be better like this or like that, so we implemented both". This is true especially when it comes to graphical options like this.

[Zhukov]

So hang on, let me get this straight. The sole advantage of this is to allow greater size difference between big units (troll) and giant units (wyvern).

And for this we would pay the already mentioned prices. The reduction in amount of the 'board' on screen sounds especially odious.
Plus I'm pretty sure there would be a negative effect on melee attack animations since the units would have to move twice as far.

Nah.

+1 for Turin's opinion.

[turin]

Plus I'm pretty sure there would be a negative effect on melee attack animations since the units would have to move twice as far.

Ooh, I didn't even think of that.

[irrevenant]

No. "Improvements" that don't actually improve should not be added as options. OAB not just because it's hard to implement the options, but because options, in and of themselves, are bad - they're essentially saying "we're too lazy to decide whether the game would be better like this or like that, so we implemented both".

Agreed. This OTOH, is not one of those cases. In this case, one way is better for some people (those with high resolution screens) and the other is better for other people (those with comparatively low resolution screens). If you can easily toggle between the two, it's also better some of the time for some people. (I would probably turn it on for small battles and off for large ones).

It's comparable to the ability to toggle accelerated moves.

Plus I'm pretty sure there would be a negative effect on melee attack animations since the units would have to move twice as far.

Ooh, I didn't even think of that.

I did, but it didn't seem a major difficulty to overcome (or that it was a negative effect, for that matter).

Anyway, I'm happy to submit to popular opinion, though I still would be interested in the input of a graphics developer or two.

[Kestenvarn]

Obviously we already have the smaller versions, this proposal only requires us to make larger ones of certain units.

Except if you wanted to make a new unit you suddenly have to be making 2 versions for it. And pixel art doesn't scale well, so they would have to be two hand-made versions.

wrong

units would have to move twice as far.

Why, exactly? Everything else about the unit is abstract.

[Woodwizzle]

Yes, and technically, this would be 'explosive biggerism.'

I heard about some pills on late night TV that can give you 'explosive biggerism'.

[turin]

Why, exactly? Everything else about the unit is abstract.

Pixelwise they would have to move farther. If The distance from hex center to hex center is 144 pixels instead of 72 pixels, then the attack animation is going to have to travel 144 pixels instead of 72.

[Kestenvarn]

No, why is it deemed absolutely necessary for units to move that closely to the target hex in their attack animations, when everything else about the unit is abstract?

Keeping in mind that this is something you could switch between the original and the expanded view with the click of a button.

[turin]

Because it would look worse to not have them move the whole way, or at least almost all of it - they do have to look like they're attacking the enemy and not just empty space, after all. Otherwise it looks worse, graphically, and since the only possible reason to make this change is graphical, it kind of defeats the purpose if it makes the game uglier.

[Eleazar]

Also, I never understood the HAPMA thing....all units are drawn to be 1 unit, but villages are 1 house and an elf can cover a whole forest....basically I understand it to mean: "ignore the discrepancy because we've already gone too far this way to go back."

I don't believe it's actually possible to standardise the scale. You'd end up with an area with a dozen terrain types within 200 metres.

The units are representations rather than literals, like playing pieces on a map. It's a bit weird, but easily understandable.

Irrevanant is exactly right above.
The point is to be easily understandable, and it is, unless you try to turn it into something it's not: some sort of scientific measurement which has no bearing on the game.


IIRC there has been some work in the past on allowing the terrain to scale separately from the units. I don't know how far this went. But chances are that a lot of parts of the code would have to be changed to make this possible.

There is some advantage in allowing the hexes to be enlarged— it makes it easier to identify the terrain underneath large units.
I would not recommend this unless it was an option-- a view mode that could be toggled on/off when the player wants to see more map or less crowding.

I would not recommend that the units be enlarged or rescaled.

It would be a significant amount of work, but not outrageous to redo the terrain tiles for 98 or 128 px square. This size could probably be scaled down to 72px without much loss

[irrevenant]

I would not recommend that the units be enlarged or rescaled.

Okay, thanks. I figured that was probably the case, but it's good to have the official word from an Art Dev.

There is some advantage in allowing the hexes to be enlarged— it makes it easier to identify the terrain underneath large units.
I would not recommend this unless it was an option-- a view mode that could be toggled on/off when the player wants to see more map or less crowding.

Yeh, that was the plan. Neither mode is ideal all the time. A quick-toggle makes sense.