Bug: new-style monster list does not correctly report line-of-sight

[Magnate]

if ((projectable(p_ptr->py, p_ptr->px, m_ptr->fy, m_ptr->fx, PROJECT_NONE) || 
        (projectable(m_ptr->fy, m_ptr->fx, p_ptr->py, p_ptr->px, PROJECT_NONE))

OK, now it's symmetrical.

Nice. But if I do that, people will complain that there are monsters in the upper half of the list that they can't target!

[jv123]

Exactly! I think it's more useful to use projectible.

[Nolendil]

Adding a third section with monsters that can target you but you can't target might be interesting but I'm afraid that would mostly make the monster list less readable.

By the way, WHY does Angband use this asymmetrical system? Is it something we need/want to keep?
I guess changing it would ruin some strategies and could make the game much more difficult but it's so counter-intuitive and frustrating when you suffer from it, and it seems like an exploit when it works in your favor...

[buzzkill]

By the way, WHY does Angband use this asymmetrical system? Is it something we need/want to keep?

This IS the question.

Right now the way the hockey stick works doesn't make sense. If anything, it should be exactly reversed. The figure closest to the corner should have cover, and the figure further down the hallway (if anyone) should be targetable.

Maybe it's time to introduce 'partial cover' into the equation.

[d_m]

What's funny is when you read the source, you find out that there is specific code to add the hocky-stick case. So it's not just a random side-effect or bug, it was definitely intentional (at some point).

[PowerDiver]

Nice. But if I do that, people will complain that there are monsters in the upper half of the list that they can't target!

If you value staying alive over killing things, surely things that can target you are more important than things you can target.

[Magnate]

If you value staying alive over killing things, surely things that can target you are more important than things you can target.

Actually I think I can convince you on this one: the monster list tells you the *current* position. Info on which monsters you can target is useful now. Info on which monsters can target you is important in one move's time, when it's their turn to move.

[PowerDiver]

Actually I think I can convince you on this one: the monster list tells you the *current* position. Info on which monsters you can target is useful now. Info on which monsters can target you is important in one move's time, when it's their turn to move.

If they can target you this turn, most likely they can target you next turn. Oh -- I see -- you have just volunteered to figure out which monsters can target you next turn, including the possibility of double moves!

[s0be]

If they can target you this turn, most likely they can target you next turn. Oh -- I see -- you have just volunteered to figure out which monsters can target you next turn, including the possibility of double moves!

I see this more as "Here's the list of monsters that can currently target you that you might want to attempt to make not able to target you"... and the solution to the monster list is to list stuff that is detected and either you can target or can target you... Yes, there's the posibility that a player might be able to detect one monster of type foo, not be able to target it and complain, when in fact, there's a second foo down a hallway that can target it, but you can't solve all problems between the chair and keyboard with code.

[Magnate]

I see this more as "Here's the list of monsters that can currently target you that you might want to attempt to make not able to target you"... and the solution to the monster list is to list stuff that is detected and either you can target or can target you... Yes, there's the posibility that a player might be able to detect one monster of type foo, not be able to target it and complain, when in fact, there's a second foo down a hallway that can target it, but you can't solve all problems between the chair and keyboard with code.

I don't think it's worth the trouble until LOS is made symmetrical (see other thread). At the moment it says "you can see X monsters", and lists those you can target. Any that are visible but you can't target will appear in the section below - and if you don't have ESP (and have not just cast a detect spell), it will be screamingly obvious if there's a monster in there that you can't target it and it can probably target you. Once you have ESP it gets trickier, but I suspect Takkaria will make LOS symmetrical soon enough, and I don't think the monster list should have more than two sections.

@Eddie: I did rather like the idea of using plings to indicate monster speed. I'd got as far as ! for anywhere from +1 energy faster to 50% faster, !! for 51-99% faster and !!! for 100+% faster. That would warn quite comprehensively of double moves - but Takkaria felt that it was too much info to make available - especially as the +/- 10% speed variation for individual non-uniques is not shown anywhere else.

[Donald Jonker]

I don't think it's worth the trouble until LOS is made symmetrical

Forgive me if this is terribly naive - only Zaimoni was kind enough to reply when I raised the issue in another thread - but is visible=targetable something that's worth looking into here? It would solve the issue at hand as well as a whole range of others.

[Magnate]

Forgive me if this is terribly naive - only Zaimoni was kind enough to reply when I raised the issue in another thread - but is visible=targetable something that's worth looking into here? It would solve the issue at hand as well as a whole range of others.

Er, isn't making visual=targetable the same as making LOS symmetrical? I don't think I understand the difference.

[Donald Jonker]

Er, isn't making visual=targetable the same as making LOS symmetrical? I don't think I understand the difference.

Ah, that's super if they're the same. I presumed that LOS symmetry only meant that the hockey-stick issue was resolved so that both sides would be co-targetable. There are plenty of other cases where neither you nor the enemy can target one another, but you're both visible to one another.

...at least I'm pretty sure that monsters can't target in those circumstances. I'd have to play around with kobold archers to be sure. You can't fire at the snake in the following example. I don't know if he'd be able to fire at you. If he can, then maybe they are the same?

  #####
  # J 
  # ###
  # # 
### ###
   @

[PowerDiver]

Ah, that's super if they're the same. I presumed that LOS symmetry only meant that the hockey-stick issue was resolved so that both sides would be co-targetable. There are plenty of other cases where neither you nor the enemy can target one another, but you're both visible to one another.

...at least I'm pretty sure that monsters can't target in those circumstances. I'd have to play around with kobold archers to be sure. You can't fire at the snake in the following example. I don't know if he'd be able to fire at you. If he can, then maybe they are the same?

  #####
  # J 
  # ###
  # # 
### ###
   @

You can shoot that snake by aiming at a wall 2 or 3 squares above him. Yet another flaw with the current system.

[PaulBlay]

You can shoot that snake by aiming at a wall 2 or 3 squares above him. Yet another flaw with the current system.

Wow, that is a flaw. I can see how it could happen though (the 'path' of missiles / spells must 'jag' and I guess there aren't checks for spaces it doesn't travel through.

    *
  ##*##
  # J[SIZE="1"] - hAXX!!1[/SIZE] 
  #*###
  #*# 
###*###
   @