Angband.oook.cz
Angband.oook.cz
AboutVariantsLadderForumCompetitionComicScreenshotsFunniesLinks

Go Back   Angband Forums > Angband > Vanilla

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 25, 2009, 20:49   #161
PaulBlay
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
PaulBlay is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marble Dice View Post
As named on the wiki page, the properties PowerDiver is referring to are "No hidden ghosts" (all pass wall monsters in visible wall tiles are visible) and "No lost targeting" (casting stone-to-mud on a walled, targetable ghost does not cause an inability to target that tile).
Ah, thanks. I figured "No hidden ghosts" was probably one of them after I check the wiki.

While you're here

Quote:
The four points of the obstructing diamond do not obstruct visibility unless that point is adjacent to another wall tile (this allows extra visibility around corners, but prevents sight through walls).
Are you referring to tangent touches of the LOS with the extreme point of the diamonds there?
__________________
Currently turning (Angband) Japanese.
PaulBlay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25, 2009, 20:59   #162
Marble Dice
Swordsman
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Columbia, MO. USA
Posts: 405
Marble Dice is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulBlay View Post
"The four points of the obstructing diamond do not obstruct visibility unless that point is adjacent to another wall tile (this allows extra visibility around corners, but prevents sight through walls)."

Are you referring to tangent touches of the LOS with the extreme point of the diamonds there?
Right. Permitting tangential intersection allows "no blind corners" but if you don't patch it for adjacent walls, you'd get leaking lines of sight inside of corridors, and other situations:

Code:
#@#
#.#.
#.#  .
#.#    .
Marble Dice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25, 2009, 21:44   #163
PowerDiver
Prophet
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,712
PowerDiver is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marble Dice View Post
the whole notion of not being able to target every wall tile from inside a room as a complete deal breaker is about as naive as saying no expanding shadows on single pillars is a deal-breaker. They are two different interpretations of Angband's dungeon model, and they both give rise to acceptable (IMO) gameplay.
I hope I never described either as a deal-breaker. People were suggesting changes that they thought could address various problems. My point was that you cannot fix everything. I gave a list of properties that I claimed cannot all be true in any consistent model of the type under discussion. Well, I listed my preferred properties and said that another property could not be made consistent with them, which amounts to the same thing.

This should suggest to model designers that they choose which property to violate at the start of the process of designing a model. Or, if they don't believe my claim, they should first show that my argument fails to apply to the kind of model they are considering.
PowerDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25, 2009, 22:03   #164
zaimoni
Knight
 
zaimoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 590
zaimoni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulBlay View Post
Could we see some diagrams for Zaiband?
Ok...here we go:

One-pillar cases:
Code:
.....?
...???
@#????
...???
.....?
Code:
...??
..???
..??.
.#...
@....
In a plain rectangular room: identical to V, except you can target anything you can see that isn't in a wall. The projection path enabling visibility will automatically swerve as needed, thanks to Tyrecius' Permissive Field of View techniques.

T-intersections and entering rooms are a bit more dangerous in Zaiband:
Code:
??.
??.
?..
#..
@..
#..
?..
??.
??.
has a reasonable ambush by D:
Code:
###
#D.
#..
#..
#..
@..
#..
#..
#..
#..
With all trick shots being handled automatically, all visible/targetable floor squares are fair game for ground zero of a ball spell; @ can be targeted by D but not conversely.

A symmetrized viewability/projection algorithm (directly violating Permissive Field of View) would end up with the following for @:
Code:
?##
?D.
?..
?..
#..
@..
#..
#..
#..
#..
Note that Zaiband abolishes the hockey puck by allowing off-diagonal projections to start diagonally:
Code:
??o
?x#
#x#
@.#
In V, this fails because the first step is into the wall to the north.

Last edited by zaimoni; June 25, 2009 at 22:10.
zaimoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25, 2009, 22:10   #165
PaulBlay
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
PaulBlay is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaimoni View Post
Ok...here we go:
Thanks, that was very useful.

Quote:
A symmetrized viewability/projection algorithm would end up with the following for @
But you don't use that in Zaiband, right?
__________________
Currently turning (Angband) Japanese.
PaulBlay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25, 2009, 22:29   #166
zaimoni
Knight
 
zaimoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 590
zaimoni is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulBlay View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaimoni
A symmetrized viewability/projection algorithm would end up with the following for @
But you don't use that in Zaiband, right?
Currently (Zaiband 3.0.9).

I'm almost annoyed enough with PowerDiver's insistence on advocating a subtly invalid argument with an already-constructed counterexample, to create a birth option for symmetrizing LOS/projectability for Zaiband 3.0.10. It may go in anyway, but I have a personal distaste for making decisons out of anger/annoyance/frustration.

[I have almost made the decision to ditch savegame import from earlier versions into Zaiband 3.0.10; 3.0.8 |-> 3.0.9 corrupts item memory, and trying to fix that currently causes rather catastrophic import bugs. I have made the decision that this isn't a release blocker, two days ago.]
zaimoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26, 2009, 04:53   #167
Nick
Vanilla maintainer
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 7,860
Donated: $60
Nick will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeneas View Post
I don't know how long you've been playing bands, but I wonder if you remember Lev. He was King of Bands at one point. He won Z in <50K by abusing every game mechanic he could. I'm still pretty impressed with Lev- he was a very good player. But I have a different philosophy- I only abuse a certain number of things .

One of the big questions about Angband is what constitutes abuse. As far as I am concerned _any_ digging meant to establish a better tactical position is abuse. Yeah- it's in the game. But it allows you to reduce the worst enemies in the game to walking treasure boxes. I don't consider any win that used ASCs at any point a real win.
I've only been playing about 6-7 years, and maintaining less than four. My view on this currently is that I will change LOS/targetting/whatever in FA when I see a compelling reason to do so - and I haven't yet.

As things stand, I tend to see LOS abuse as more a player decision than a maintainer one. This fits my general philosophy of giving the player as much choice of playstyle as possible - I think that even with the most egregious abuse possible it's a pretty hard game. But then I'm just a variant maintainer
__________________
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26, 2009, 11:31   #168
PaulBlay
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
PaulBlay is on a distinguished road
I hold that displaying additional walls (such as exterior and corner wall tiles of rooms) does not require making them technically visible or targettable. This applies to the arguments about whether expanding shadows are compatible with 'nice' display of room walls.

For clarity I've suggested some changes to the wiki page and I'd like to know whether anybody really thinks it's a good idea to expand visibility/targetability for walls displayed as a "special case".

Here's an example of what I mean from the "diamond wall blocks" system.

Code:
??##.##??
#...@....
#........
#........
Our hero has just walked into a room. The '?' grids are wall tiles that are naturally 'out of sight'.

Code:
#G##.####
#...@....
#........
#........
Same situation, but room walls are displayed as a special case. Although they are displayed, they are not targetable and a ghost in the position shown would not be shown (nor would it be able to target the @).

Code:
#G##.####
#...@....
#........
#........
Same situation but displayed room walls are specially made visible and targetable. The G can target the @ and the @ could target the G (if there were spells that hit G's in walls). However if the @ casts a stone to mud where the G is it will no longer be a special case and will 'disappear' (no longer be able to target, or be targetable). I don't see why anyone would want this to happen - but if people do speak now or forever hold your peace.
__________________
Currently turning (Angband) Japanese.
PaulBlay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26, 2009, 15:16   #169
buzzkill
Prophet
 
buzzkill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 2,939
Donated: $8
buzzkill is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulBlay View Post
I hold that displaying additional walls (such as exterior and corner wall tiles of rooms) does not require making them technically visible or targettable. This applies to the arguments about whether expanding shadows are compatible with 'nice' display of room walls.
I'll take either of the former, though I'd like to see 'special cases' avoided as much as possible, and this 'special case' is pretty trivial, purely aesthetic, and in the long run, probably more confusing than worthwhile.

A simpler way to look at this might just be to ask "How long do you want the hockey stick to be?". The longer the stick, the more permissive the visibility and targeting will be. The current 1x2 HS yields only 20' of visible wall when standing adjacent to it, 40' visibility at 10' distant, etc. Once we establish this number, then mechanics and special cases can be worked out. Poll anybody? [cringes]
__________________
www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder.
buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26, 2009, 15:32   #170
PaulBlay
Knight
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
PaulBlay is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzkill View Post
I'll take either of the former, though I'd like to see 'special cases' avoided as much as possible, and this 'special case' is pretty trivial, purely aesthetic, and in the long run, probably more confusing than worthwhile.
At least in the case of room walls of lit rooms I don't see that it would be confusing at all.

[EDIT] Deleted stuff I wasn't quite sure about.
__________________
Currently turning (Angband) Japanese.

Last edited by PaulBlay; June 26, 2009 at 16:08.
PaulBlay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
feature request - disturb on reverse LOS PowerDiver Vanilla 2 May 18, 2009 07:46


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:11.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.