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

[PaulBlay]

If the 'G' can see you (and cast nether bolts at you), you should be able to see it!

Unless a) nether can pass through walls, b) ghosts can see through walls.

Neither a nor b sounds that unlikely, but if so then _your_ nether bolts should go through walls as well (and I'd expect potions / spells of "see through wall" on the market soon).

[Pete Mack]

Unless a) nether can pass through walls, b) ghosts can see through walls.

Neither a nor b sounds that unlikely, but if so then _your_ nether bolts should go through walls as well (and I'd expect potions / spells of "see through wall" on the market soon).

That's not what magnate wrote:

Ok, easy one first: the ghost one is not a bug. We're using "projectable" as visible, and you can't hit monsters in walls with projectiles, so they don't count as truly "visible" in this context. Sorry if that sounds clunky but it's the best we've got at the moment (see the ongoing LOS debate for the future).

You can't shoot at the 'G' in the wall, but he can bolt you out of the wall. Or at least that's always been the case up to now. (And a good thing too, IMO. It makes invisible monsters more of a tactical challenge.)

[PaulBlay]

That's not what magnate wrote:

Er, obviously. I was merely suggesting a plausible scenario under which ghosts should be able to shoot you from the wall.

[Magnate]

You can't shoot at the 'G' in the wall, but he can bolt you out of the wall. Or at least that's always been the case up to now. (And a good thing too, IMO. It makes invisible monsters more of a tactical challenge.)

So you're happy with the current operation of the monster list? Or you think we should change "You can see X monsters" to "You can target X monsters"? That would be more accurate, but feels less sensible.

(See my other reply to jv123 - I think I'm going to change the definition of "easily visible")

[Magnate]

In r1452, in the situation in the savefile, whether or not the dragon is "seen" is NOT a function of whether it can be targeted. So, something definitely needs fixing there.

Indeed. The code which governs monster 'visibility' is separate from the monster list code, which uses projectable() as a shortcut. The proper solution is to make the two consistent - but I will have to check with Takkaria before doing this, as changing the definition of "easily visible" may have ramifications I'm not currently aware of.

[d_m]

Or you think we should change "You can see X monsters" to "You can target X monsters"? That would be more accurate, but feels less sensible.

I think new players might benefit from this distinction.

[Pete Mack]

I care about which monsters that can target me... If I can't target the 'G', then I can't see the 'G', even if he's standing in an adjacent wall and waling on me! Or at least, that's what I understood from your earlier post.

[Magnate]

I care about which monsters that can target me... If I can't target the 'G', then I can't see the 'G', even if he's standing in an adjacent wall and waling on me! Or at least, that's what I understood from your earlier post.

That's correct. It would be easy to expand the upper portion of the monster list to include all those monsters that can project() to @ as well as vice versa, but since it's not symmetrical, can we come up with a better name than "There are X monsters that you can target or who can target you" ....? Because that's too long and too clumsy for the monster list.

EDIT: actually, as I said earlier in this thread, the symmetry isn't really important because which monsters can target you isn't as relevant on your turn as which monsters you can target. So maybe the simplest fix is to change "You can see X monsters" to "You can target X monsters" ...