Print

Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Potman]

Yeah, I find it a bit unrealistic (not to mention unfair) that former humans and sergeants and such are able to react immediately after the player comes to their vicinity, even when they're nothing but rotting corpses with no brains inside. This is especially annoying if it's a sergeant with some barrels around.
Like, I dunno, would it be possible to increase some monsters' reaction time? For instance, when former sergeant sees me, it'll go "Huh...?" for a second before firing. Would be kinda like a monster generator: They won't act immediately. I guess those monsters generated, as well as those in the player's immediate vicinity right in the beginning of each level, just stand there dumbfounded about how I just appeared from nowhere. Why couldn't they do the same thing during the game?
And now, here's the catch: Sometimes, if the monster's reaction time would be really slow - such as with former humans/sergeants(/captains/commandos) - once they finally manage to react, they will fire the player even if he wasn't there anymore. With this, it'd be possible to have these cool movie firefights where the protagonist fires at the evil guys, and then ducks for cover, during which time the bullets will fly at him even when the enemies can't even see him anymore. That'd be so cool.

Eh?

[TFoN]

Yeah, I find it a bit unrealistic (not to mention unfair) that former humans and sergeants and such are able to react immediately after the player comes to their vicinity, even when they're nothing but rotting corpses with no brains inside.

Y'know what, I agree completely! The zombies I meet IRL act entriely different! :P

But seriously (as far as that goes), I don't think they're zombies. IIRC they're possessed/demonically defiled living humans.

Other than that:
It seems to me that for the most part they don't often react before you enter their LOS. From my experience, most monsters are less likely to fire the first time you enter their LOS. However, making former foo reactions a little slower by making their movement/wait costs a little higher (as these are the only actions they're likely to take out of LOS) could be nice. But allowing them to keep firing at you once you're out of their LOS is either too exploitable or too dangerous, depending on if you have cover or not, respectively. Think about it - if you waste all of a former commando's ammo on the wall you're standing behind, that's free XP. On the other hand, what happens if something, like a buddy HK, knocks you back, and now he's out of your LOS? Streams of plasma everywhere, and you're stuck with a 50% miss chance even if you can figure out his current location. Giving him the 50% too, however, would again make this too exploitable.

[BDR]

I rather think that everything has a 50% miss chance when firing at things out of LOS, as even with the arena's current allowance for enemies to see the second 'you' and fire at the real you, they don't hit nearly as often as they do when shooting at you from within LOS.  I'm not terribly sure how you'd exploit this, though, as unless you have 3 HR, a load of speed mods, and 2 Fin there's not a whole lot of room for stepping in sight, taking a potshot, and stepping out of it to take advantage of the LOS-less accuracy.  Although, I could be dead wrong; I've noticed on the maze levels that sometimes the human captains are able to shoot at me even though I can't see them, and their bullets hit pretty well (although I am usually shooting another enemy at the time.. needs more testing).

[Rabiat]

Yeah, I find it a bit unrealistic (not to mention unfair) that former humans and sergeants and such are able to react immediately after the player comes to their vicinity, even when they're nothing but rotting corpses with no brains inside. This is especially annoying if it's a sergeant with some barrels around.

I agree with TFoN that Former foos are not supposed to be zombies. Also I don't think it's unfair they fire at you as soon as you enter their LOS. You got to move, they get to fire. If they move into your LOS, you get the shot. One of the things I enjoy so much about DoomRL is the opportunity of an unsuspecting former sergeant walking into sight. And if there's a barrel next to him, it feels like three seconds of Christmas. ;)

With this, it'd be possible to have these cool movie firefights where the protagonist fires at the evil guys, and then ducks for cover, during which time the bullets will fly at him even when the enemies can't even see him anymore. That'd be so cool.

It'd be cool in a real time FPS. It reminds me of the slow motion dodge in a game called Max Payne. RLs are turn based, though.

Although, I could be dead wrong; I've noticed on the maze levels that sometimes the human captains are able to shoot at me even though I can't see them, and their bullets hit pretty well (although I am usually shooting another enemy at the time.. needs more testing).

I've been wondering about something like this. Are you certain that enemies firing from outside LOS actually are outside LOS (disregarding the new arena level)? Sometimes I think that occasionally an enemy can see me while I can't see it (and sometimes the other way around). Is LOS actually symmetric - i.e. does a visible enemy always see you, too? I've got no proof for this, just theory:

# Line of fire appears to be asymmetric at times. A former commando hits you around the corner, but when you 'double-f' back it him your bullets hit the wall at low angles. Apparently the line from enemy to player doesn't hit the same map squares as the line from player to enemy. The same could be happening for LOS.

# Also, there's these annoying gaps in LOS resulting from the sin/cos rotation in the LOS calculation. No matter how many steps your ray trace takes to do a full circle, there's these dark spots at low angles. Remember having to vacuum clean half a hallway just to uncover the walls? What happens if an enemy is in one of the dark tiles? It might be able to see you because it's within a viewing range, and you could be in its LOS while it's not in yours.

[BDR]

I've been wondering about something like this. Are you certain that enemies firing from outside LOS actually are outside LOS (disregarding the new arena level)?

Yes, they are definitely not in LOS.  This hail of bullets just comes from out of the darkness while I'm busy with a former foo/imp, and I'm suddenly sporting a nice red streak on my armor (which would be nicer if it were paint or some former foo's blood and not my own).

Sometimes I think that occasionally an enemy can see me while I can't see it (and sometimes the other way around). Is LOS actually symmetric - i.e. does a visible enemy always see you, too? I've got no proof for this, just theory:

From what's been said on the forum and the wiki, the only enemy that is intended to be able to see you from out of LOS is the Cyberdemon, and being the end-boss a little cheapness is fine (given that he's still reasonably killable).

# Line of fire appears to be asymmetric at times. A former commando hits you around the corner, but when you 'double-f' back it him your bullets hit the wall at low angles. Apparently the line from enemy to player doesn't hit the same map squares as the line from player to enemy. The same could be happening for LOS.

There is a slight asymmetry in the way the targeting cursor works.  However, it has nothing to do with who is using it AFAICT, and everything to do with where the user is standing and where they're aiming.  Try pointing at a square two squares down and one to the right, then moving to the place you just targeted and pointing at the square you just moved from.  Notice a difference in the choice of the middle square?  It's rather annoying, but fortunately it's possible most of the time to overcome it by simply aiming at a slightly different position (instead of double 'f'ing) so as to avoid walls/barrels.

# Also, there's these annoying gaps in LOS resulting from the sin/cos rotation in the LOS calculation. No matter how many steps your ray trace takes to do a full circle, there's these dark spots at low angles. Remember having to vacuum clean half a hallway just to uncover the walls? What happens if an enemy is in one of the dark tiles? It might be able to see you because it's within a viewing range, and you could be in its LOS while it's not in yours.

I really don't think it works like that, but I have no proof either way.

[TFoN]

I rather think that everything has a 50% miss chance when firing at things out of LOS, as even with the arena's current allowance for enemies to see the second 'you' and fire at the real you, they don't hit nearly as often as they do when shooting at you from within LOS.

I'm not sure if this is a good example and actual evidence. On these arena levels you're moving around a lot (whether to run away or to find a target), which increases your dodge rate. Also, you're likely to be doing this on Coward, no matter your strategy while fighting, because you have no target anyway. So 50% miss rate or not, you're bound to be hit a lot less often than when you're on a normal level, standing and shooting. Actually, with the 50% miss rate, coward tactics, long ranges and moving around, you're likely to hardly ever be hit, which isn't likely to be the case on these levels, where players die so very often :)

From my experience, LOS is asymmetric, and should be the only reason for why some monsters fire at you from what seems like out of LOS (AFAIK, this never happens in open spaces, where LOS boundries are the only reason for being out of LOS). This makes most sense where it has been complained about most: on maze levels, chances are very good that what Rabiat described on his last paragraph will happen, i.e. you'll have to vacuum clean a hallway, and somewhere on the path something will see you when you can't see it and'll take that "blind" shot at you.

There is a slight asymmetry in the way the targeting cursor works.  However, it has nothing to do with who is using it AFAICT, and everything to do with where the user is standing and where they're aiming.  Try pointing at a square two squares down and one to the right, then moving to the place you just targeted and pointing at the square you just moved from.  Notice a difference in the choice of the middle square?  It's rather annoying, but fortunately it's possible most of the time to overcome it by simply aiming at a slightly different position (instead of double 'f'ing) so as to avoid walls/barrels.

Targeting corrections work fine with targeting, as you have mostly full control over the intended target. But that's exactly the problem with LOS - you get what the algorithm gives you, and you have to live with it. Any case where you can't hit your target, directly or indirectly, is likely to be a case where you can't see it. But just like this doesn't mean that your target can't hit you, it doesn't mean he can't see you, either. It gets real bad when you can't see him due to algorithm behaviour (and not too short a LOS), but do have line-of-fire. Therefore, I doubt the same algorithm is used for both, although it seems they have the same type of quirks.

Also, I'm sure you've all encountered a monster blowing itself to bits by hitting a barrel. I'm almost certain this happens for the smae reason the targeting line sometimes shows green when it should be red and vice versa. I.e. sometimes an imp fires at you, hitting a barrel even though its AI normally refuses to fire without having a clear shot. My guess is that as far as the AI knew, it did.

[Rabiat]

There is a slight asymmetry in the way the targeting cursor works.  However, it has nothing to do with who is using it AFAICT, and everything to do with where the user is standing and where they're aiming.  Try pointing at a square two squares down and one to the right, then moving to the place you just targeted and pointing at the square you just moved from.  Notice a difference in the choice of the middle square?  It's rather annoying, but fortunately it's possible most of the time to overcome it by simply aiming at a slightly different position (instead of double 'f'ing) so as to avoid walls/barrels.

I'm afraid my question wasn't clear. I'm aware of the fact that the targeting quirk is overcome by firing at a location past a target. I intended to point out that the trace from the player's location to the target's location could be different from the trace to the target's location to the player's (hence, asymmetric).

What if the player aiming at a former foo would return the following trace (left), while the former foo aiming at the player would return another trace (right):

Code: [Select]

@***             @**
    **h             ***h

If either one of the center tiles is a wall, the player would be able to hit the former foo, while the former foo would not be able to hit the player (or vice versa).

It is very likely that a similar ray tracing technique is used for calculating FOV (one can tell by the gaps). If the above example were valid for FOV, and one of the center tiles were a wall, the former foo could be able to see the player (left) without the player being able to see the former foo (right):

Code: [Select]

@***             @**
   #**h             #  h

This of course only happens if the program actually calculates the FOV for the former foo. A more effective implementation would be to calculate the player's FOV once, and if you need to know whether an enemy can see the player, just check if the player can see the enemy (this at least guarantees symmetric FOV).

But that's exactly the problem with LOS - you get what the algorithm gives you, and you have to live with it. (...) It gets real bad when you can't see him due to algorithm behaviour (and not too short a LOS), but do have line-of-fire. Therefore, I doubt the same algorithm is used for both, although it seems they have the same type of quirks.

It's likely that line of fire and field of view use the same ray tracing algorithm (i.e. FOV is nothing but of bunch of clockwise LOS calculations). In that case LOS and FOV would suffer from the same quirks. If that's true, a problem rounding angles or gaps should be the same for LOS and FOV (so a player can't target what they can't see, and can always target what they see). That's why I thought the actual problem could be caused by directional asymmetry (from player to enemy, and from enemy to player).