Targetting and LOS discussion wiki page

[PaulBlay]

I'm writing up a wiki page in roguebasin for the Targetting and LOS discussion (as the thread is rather out of hand).

What I would like are
1. Corrections and additions.
2. Permission to copy your post text into the wiki-licensed page.

Obviously direct participation in Roguebasin is welcome, but you can just post stuff here or in the main Targetting and LOS thread.

[aeneas]

Wow- do me a favor and stay the hell away from V, OK. You need to be a variant maintainer, if only to keep the rest of us safe from this sort of thing.

I like to play Angband more than I like to theorize about visibilty. Part of playing Angband well is being able to figure out who can target you without having to check. This gets a bit complicated at times, and I have to admit that I do guess, occasionally. And then I check, if it matters. But I do this very rarely- I usually know who can target me without having to think about it.

If I have to memorize your diagrams to figure that out, well- we'll always have 3.0.6.

More seriously, I'd suggest that you play some Angband before suggesting catastrophic changes to it. There are a lot of ideas out there. You happen to be very loud about yours. You would make a great variant maintainer.

[PaulBlay]

More seriously, I'd suggest that you play some Angband before suggesting catastrophic changes to it. There are a lot of ideas out there. You happen to be very loud about yours. You would make a great variant maintainer.

Er, all that stuff is taken out of a certain far too long thread and little of it is actually mine.

[aeneas]

Er, all that stuff is taken out of a certain far too long thread and little of it is actually mine.

That's immaterial. What I want to know is this: can I easily figure out who can target me. I have a great deal of respect for Eddie, but if he suggests some weird diagram that I have to think about I'm perfectly willing to tell him to stay the hell away from V. I mean, I like his variant, but it uses the standard targeting code. And anyway it's a _variant_. Kind of fun too- but not V. Though I have to admit that I think V should adopt the no-sell bit.

Anyway, Eddie is a great Angband player. And he has some great ideas about Angband- some revolutionary ideas. But he has also proposed some incredibly dumb ideas. Lots of them. That's what's great about Eddie- he proposes all kinds of things and doesn't worry much about them after that. Except for the few things he added to his var5iant, but that's another story.

Anyway, here's the important bit about LOT. I'm going to be very pissed if I don't understand it. I've been playing Angband for years. I know who can target me, and when they can target me. If I get killed by Vecna because he stormed me when I thought he couldn't I'm not going to care much about whether the change was your idea or Eddie's idea.

[Marble Dice]

The charts, diagrams, etc are just there to help people understand the various proposed systems, so we can think about which one makes the most sense. Trust me, no one wants to memorize a bunch of charts to drive an LOS/LOT system. I think the ideal here is symmetry in visibility and visibile = targetable. This would imply if you can see it, it can see you, and you can target it, and it can target you. If you can't see something it cannot see or target you, and vice-versa.

I updated the wiki page to include a bit more structure. Everyone feel free to look over it and add any points you feel have been left out.

At the conclusion of the big ol' targeting/LOS thread, we've basically arrived at two possible methods: 1) Digital Field of View or 2) something that incorporates expanding pillar shadows. I put the most information in the two methods I think best represent these two alternatives.

[d_m]

If we are going to try to communicate via this wiki, what is the protocol? Should I just modify junk?

Also, I'd like to see more distinction between FOV and LOS/projectile-paths, since while they are related they are different and have their own nuances. For instance, certain FOV implementations might require interesting projectile paths to work. I am happy to add this as to the wiki as long as I can be sure not to step on someone else's toes.

[Marble Dice]

Should I just modify junk?

...long as I can be sure not to step on someone else's toes.

Conventional wiki wisdom dictates that you edit first, think later. If someone doesn't like what you've done, they'll just fix it. More likely they'll re-organize, expand, and improve upon what you contribute.

[PaulBlay]

I updated the wiki page to include a bit more structure. Everyone feel free to look over it and add any points you feel have been left out.

I added back in the "Other points for consideration".

Added more fig numbers for ease of reference.

[PaulBlay]

If we are going to try to communicate via this wiki, what is the protocol? Should I just modify junk?

I would say that forum threads are a fine place to argue, but wiki pages are much better for keeping track of the points made.

[PowerDiver]

Anyway, here's the important bit about LOT. I'm going to be very pissed if I don't understand it.

That is the appeal for reverse targetable implying visible. You get that with symmetry plus visible == targetable. I would like some sort of highlighting method to make obvious which monsters detected through spell or ESP are in, versus not in, reverse LOS.

There would still be a learning curve about stepping into LOS of a monster. If things change, there's no way to avoid that. I suppose you should modify disturb to stop you before it [knowingly] happens when you are running.

[RogerN]

Regarding the section "Diamond walls, point visibility". A possible disadvantage is that, for certain arrangements of pillars, you can end up with disconnected regions of visibility (i.e. a dotted line of visible tiles which do not touch):

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

        ?.?

[PaulBlay]

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

        ?.?

I think that's worth adding to the wiki. I think I'll do up a larger scale diagram to double check (not that I doubt you, but to make it easier to visualize).

[RogerN]

Regarding the section "Diamond walls, point visibility". A possible disadvantage is that, for certain arrangements of pillars, you can end up with disconnected regions of visibility (i.e. a dotted line of visible tiles which do not touch)

Incidentally, these artifacts are the result of allowing line-of-sight to pass through tiles which aren't visible. In other words, a line going to the center of tile A is obstructed by some other intervening wall, making tile A invisible. But a line which passes through the corner of tile A is allowed to go through (since it doesn't intersect the diamond), and therefore you may end up with disconnected visible tiles on the far side of tile A.

[PaulBlay]

OK, here's my version of your fig.

Green diamonds = visible walls
Red diamonds = out-of-LOS walls
Dots = visible floor tiles

There's a big version at the wiki page. (A bit too big really ;-)

[buzzkill]

OK, here's my version of your fig.

Green diamonds = visible walls
Red diamonds = out-of-LOS walls
Dots = visible floor tiles

There's a big version at the wiki page. (A bit too big really ;-)

I'll take issue with that. The 2 southernmost dots, are not visible. The furthest dot is a borderline case, normally visible, but since it is borderline blocked from 2 opposing sides, is has to be considered non-visible (even if a special exception be made). The dot above it has no line of sight to the center point.