Timeline for Can I prevent diagonal movement from exploring more of the map?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ with https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 26, 2014 at 0:35 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | I did something similar a while back, and I solved it by having orthogonal movement cost two "ticks" per square, and diagonal movement cost three. | |
| Apr 25, 2014 at 19:29 | comment | added | supercat | It would leave that sequence less efficient, but so what? Not all methods of exploration should be equally efficient. Actually, it might not be bad to have a time penalty for changes of orientation, with an exemption for cases where the move before or after was a double-charged diagonal. | |
| Apr 25, 2014 at 19:17 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @supercat: True, but that would leave the E, NE, E, NE, ... sequence noticeably less efficient for exploring than straight orthogonal / diagonal movement, which might not be desirable either. | |
| Apr 25, 2014 at 19:14 | comment | added | supercat | An easy way to prevent such exploits would be to say that a diagonal movement costs takes two ticks except when preceded by a move in the same direction which took two ticks. | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 23:43 | history | edited | Anko | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Grammar. Linked to Dane's answer for completeness. |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20 | history | answered | Ilmari Karonen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |