change hexagons to octagons

[blind biker]

Well the 12 pentagons would'nt really be a big problem if they were on the poles, more of a challenge I think. People don't usually settle on there anyway, as they are impassable in CiV.

Pretty much what I said, I believe. But I definitely appreciate anyone who agrees with me

 

[Tsathoggua]

I don't know enough about non-Euclidean geometry to make a lot of certain statements... for example, I don't know if it is provable or not that a construct larger than the C540 fullerene is possible that only uses hexagons.

I'm not sure it is, but I have friends who could answer. I'll see about it.

 

[blind biker]

I might have missed this bit, so it's time for me to clarify: every CLOSED fullerene conains 12 pentagons. Only an "open" fullerene (it's even questionable if it should be called a fullerene) such as carbon naontubes of any chirality, or graphene, is constituted of hexagons only. If you add pentagons to a graphene, you also must add heptagons, or else it won't be planar anymore.

 

[PawelS]

Well the 12 pentagons would'nt really be a big problem if they were on the poles, more of a challenge I think. People don't usually settle on there anyway, as they are impassable in CiV.

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, they can't be only on the poles, but should be evenly distributed through the globe. I don't think it's a big problem though.

 

[timtofly]

You could always place a Natural Wonder on the Pentagon.

 

[timtofly]

If some graphics cards cannot handle the fast clip of the moving earth, how are they going to handle the view when someone crosses over the pole to the other side?

 

[blind biker]

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, they can't be only on the poles, but should be evenly distributed through the globe. I don't think it's a big problem though.

The pentagons only need to be on the caps - you could model the earth to be a CNT-like barrel with two fullerene caps with pentagons, only for the poles. As in this post. Then you reshape the "barrel" into a sphere, and the trick is done. In this case the highest concentration of hexagons will be beyond 45 degrees latitude (N or S) and up until the arctic/antarctic circle. The concentration of hexes at the equator would be smaller but very similar. This is a very reasonable compromise, not any worse in nature than a Miller projection map of the Earth.

 

[E66man]

For this, I have found a truly wonderful proof, but the post is too small to contain it.

Mad props for that one

 

[E66man]

Oh yes. The fullerenes in the picture are actually all the same - C960. The figure on the right is just a curved version to make it spherical, which is what we're talking about. Check out the originating link (slightly) for more info.

I would be happy enough sticking with the original icosahedron if it meant every tile was uniform... but if you only need to stick in like 1% pentagons you can always just make those tiles impassable mountain or ice and get by.

 

[WastinTime]

We're being conned into thinking the new Hex grid is "more complex" and "more strategic" than the old squares (six is better than four). However, from a square, you can go in EIGHT directions instead of six. The square grid is really the octagon you were hoping for. It's just that every other side of the octagon is very very small (one pixel).

I will agree the hexes look kinda pretty, and pretty seems to win out over better, smarter gameplay these days.

 

[JP1]

We're being conned into thinking the new Hex grid is "more complex" and "more stragegic" than the old squares (six is better than four). However, from a square, you can go in EIGHT directions instead of six. The square grid is really the octagon you were hoping for. It's just that every other side of the octagon is very very small (one pixel).

I will agree the hexes look kinda pretty, and pretty seems to win out over better, smarter gameplay these days.

Not exactly. The tiling with squares gives you a square with 8 adjacent tiles, certainly, but some of those adjacent tiles only border two of the other adjacent tiles, while some border four... Similar, but not the same.

 

[PawelS]

More directions don't mean more strategy, and with squares it's usually better to move your units on the diagonals, which leaves only 4 viable directions in many cases.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

More directions don't mean more strategy, and with squares it's usually better to move your units on the diagonals, which leaves only 4 viable directions in many cases.

You can see a similar effect in some older FPSes and even the original Everquest, where running diagonally towards your objective was actually faster than heading straight there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can see a similar effect in some older FPSes and even the original Everquest, where running diagonally towards your objective was actually faster than heading straight there.

Technically, you were still heading straight there, you just were not FACING the said objective .

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Technically, you were still heading straight there, you just were not FACING the said objective .

Yes, but the point was, you moved faster because the game was poorly designed.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yes, but the point was, you moved faster because the game was poorly designed.

Glaring design flaws are held up as 'features' by angry reactionary gamers to this day. I guarantee you if there was a Descent 4 it would be panned for not allowing tricording. Dolphin diving, bunny hopping, no scoping, grenade jumping. It's almost like the more blatantly tacky and stupid a mechanic is the more gamers are willing to kill any developer that fixes it. Thank God that the original Quake didn't allow you to do cartwheels while holding a shotgun with your teeth...

I guarantee you there is a gamer on another forum, right now, ranting about how much skill it takes to move diagonally towards your target.

I'm starting to give up all hope. I think gamers are so reactionary that they really *do* want the same game with better graphics. Some of them don't even want better graphics, they literally just want the same game with 'moar gunz/unitz/techz/whateverz.' I think some of them literally just want to play the same game forever and even an identical sequel would set them off.

I bet I can find a thread where someone is complaining that StarCraft2 was changed too much if I look hard enough, and it's the epitome of a MOAR style sequel.

It really does seem like fear of change has become the defining character trait of PC gamers.

 

[anti_strunt]

Glaring design flaws are held up as 'features' by angry reactionary gamers to this day. I guarantee you if there was a Descent 4 it would be panned for not allowing tricording. Dolphin diving, bunny hopping, no scoping, grenade jumping. It's almost like the more blatantly tacky and stupid a mechanic is the more gamers are willing to kill any developer that fixes it. Thank God that the original Quake didn't allow you to do cartwheels while holding a shotgun with your teeth...

I guarantee you there is a gamer on another forum, right now, ranting about how much skill it takes to move diagonally towards your target.

I'm starting to give up all hope. I think gamers are so reactionary that they really *do* want the same game with better graphics. Some of them don't even want better graphics, they literally just want the same game with 'moar gunz/unitz/techz/whateverz.' I think some of them literally just want to play the same game forever and even an identical sequel would set them off.

I bet I can find a thread where someone is complaining that StarCraft2 was changed too much if I look hard enough, and it's the epitome of a MOAR style sequel.

It really does seem like fear of change has become the defining character trait of PC gamers.

6 < 8. More is smarter. This is science!