targetting and LOS

[PaulBlay]

Zaiband implements points 1,3,4,5. [Point 5 is "the projection algorithm is smart enough to calculate the trick shots for you and the monsters."] Point 2 is the "nobody can ambush worth anything" property; as such, I find it bad for gameplay.

Could we see some diagrams for Zaiband?

[Rizwan]

Should you even be able to step diagonally between two walls like that?

I think you should not be able to see through such walls let alone move. You should have to tunnel to to do so.

[buzzkill]

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.

Every once in a while I wonder what I could do if I really used everything in the game. I could stair-scum- but I guess that's meaningless when scrolls of Deep Descent show up in the BM. I could kill big summoners in ASCs- I guess that is actually done pretty frequently. But I'm a purist about this sort of thing. I only remove stone in order to get at vaults. And I think V would be better if that were the only case in which you could remove stone.

OFF TOPIC: I sometime use STM/tunneling to take a shortcut around some scary monsters on my way to the stairs. Also, on occasion, when surrounded in a long corridor, I'll dig an alcove in the wall, then step inside it, to break LOS with most of the breathers crammed in the length of the hallway.

[PowerDiver]

I think you should not be able to see through such walls let alone move. You should have to tunnel to to do so.

This is about the advantage of hexes over squares. In a hex map, two adjacent tiles share a vertex iff [if and only if] they share an edge. In a square map, it is possible to share only a vertex.

In the current system, diagonally adjacent #'s are assumed not to touch. Changing that would be a big deal.

If you really want to change this, you should widen the discussion to include switching to a hex map where there is no problem, by design.

[PowerDiver]

I don't think you should be able to see monsters in the walls for the whole of a large lit room when you enter it adjacent to a wall.

The property I am talking about is not visibility from the entrance or square with the door etc. You can do whatever you like there. I have a preference, but I wouldn't argue if it went the other way. The important property is what you see after you take *another* step into the interior of the room, getting out of the row or column of #s that make up a wall. Visibility from there is what conflicts with expanding cones in a symmetric model.

[PaulBlay]

The property I am talking about is not visibility from the entrance or square with the door etc. You can do whatever you like there. I have a preference, but I wouldn't argue if it went the other way. The important property is what you see after you take *another* step into the interior of the room, getting out of the row or column of #s that make up a wall. Visibility from there is what conflicts with expanding cones in a symmetric model.

I did say "enter it" not "stand in the entrance to it".

I'm quite happy with a situation like Fig 22.

[PowerDiver]

I'm a purist about this sort of thing. I only remove stone in order to get at vaults. And I think V would be better if that were the only case in which you could remove stone.

There's a game mechanic for stone you should be able to remove. It is called rubble.

I agree the quoted view, but I am lazy. Also, I'd rather wands of stone to mud not be junk. I allow myself to cast stone-to-mud to open up a path between rooms so that after I phase away from a monster we can get reacquainted more quickly. Once I decided I was willing to do that, I also decided to use it to create shortcuts between rooms when I am heading for the stairs.

[PowerDiver]

I did say "enter it" not "stand in the entrance to it".

I guess I do not understand what point you are making. I agree that you can make visible walls in conjunction with expanding pillars consistent, if you are willing to violate one of the properties I suggested about passwall monsters.

[PaulBlay]

I guess I do not understand what point you are making. I agree that you can make visible walls in conjunction with expanding pillars consistent, if you are willing to violate one of the properties I suggested about passwall monsters.

Yeah, but what were those properties? That post must be over 10 replies ago as I can't see it from here.

[EDIT] OK, I think we're disagreeing on the definition of "visible wall". I am in favour of 'expansive walls' (as Marble Dice put it). Display on map of walls that "you'd think logically you'd be able to see" but where any (possible) content of those walls will not necessarily be known. This doesn't give the G in the wall any tactical advantage over just not being able to see the wall. It still can't see or target you, and you still can't see or target it (when it is in the theoretical shadow).

In other words I could say those 'additional' wall tiles are displayed but are not visible.

[EDITx2] Expansive walls are actually related to "wall memory".

Take this example:

#########%%%%%
  ....@....
#########%%%%%

Without expansive walls - walking down a dark corridor from the left. Walls are still displayed where he knows they were from earlier. He can't see monsters in the walls to the left any better than he can see them in the %'s to the right.

###########%%%
  ....@....
###########%%%

With expansive walls - walking down a dark corridor from the left. Same situation, only a couple more %'s are replaced by #'s.

########%%%%%%%%%%%%%
     .@..............
########%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Without expansive walls - our hero (with a torch) zaps a wand of light to the right.

#####################
     .@..............
#####################

Same situation with expansive walls.

[Marble Dice]

I agree that you can make visible walls in conjunction with expanding pillars consistent, if you are willing to violate one of the properties I suggested about passwall monsters.

Yeah, but what were those properties? That post must be over 10 replies ago as I can't see it from here.

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).

Of course, as Paul points out, one or more of these properties are only broken if you actually want to make all those wall tiles visible/targetable. You can still just use the map memory to display the walls (in the darkened non-visible wall tile color) even though those tiles aren't visible (which really just means stuff inside those wall tiles isn't visible).

You can argue that would be more difficult to implement, which suggests such a system would be less than ideal. That's a valid argument, but 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.

[PaulBlay]

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

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?

[Marble Dice]

"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:

#@#
#.#.
#.#  .
#.#    .

[PowerDiver]

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.

[zaimoni]

Could we see some diagrams for Zaiband?

Ok...here we go:

One-pillar cases:

.....?
...???
@#????
...???
.....?

...??
..???
..??.
.#...
@....

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:

??.
??.
?..
#..
@..
#..
?..
??.
??.

has a reasonable ambush by D:

###
#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 @:

?##
?D.
?..
?..
#..
@..
#..
#..
#..
#..

Note that Zaiband abolishes the hockey puck by allowing off-diagonal projections to start diagonally:

??o
?x#
#x#
@.#

In V, this fails because the first step is into the wall to the north.

[PaulBlay]

Ok...here we go:

Thanks, that was very useful.

A symmetrized viewability/projection algorithm would end up with the following for @

But you don't use that in Zaiband, right?