Ideas from old angband.

[dos350]

WOW EXCUSE ME BUT IM SHOCKED AND APPALLED!!!~

i never thought id hear such foul language on the peaceful angband forum,,

SHAME on u timo

[Timo Pietilä]

I don't either. But it really doesn't bother me at all as much as it bothers Timo. I think I'm more paranoid about running though. I also play with always center map, which I think makes a big difference in our perspectives.

That latter doesn't affect the issue. I had no way of knowing that that monster was there. Only way to detect would have been by interrupting the running before it became in my visual range, but if it isn't in my visual range, then how would I have known to do that? Also running is really fast in my machine. Almost like controlled teleporting.

More than that instant death bothered me was that it removed one major tactical aspect in the game. I used to use luring the monsters where I wanted them to go a lot before. If someone remembers I told how I used to use luring tactic to get rid of too-difficult to handle -monsters from open GV:s. Crown GV especially when that was accidentally marked as LV and was very common. I lured those to follow me, teleported to other side and walked in. Removing that made game a lot less interesting to me.

That instant death (which BTW happened way sooner than I expected) was just the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

[fizzix]

More than that instant death bothered me was that it removed one major tactical aspect in the game. I used to use luring the monsters where I wanted them to go a lot before. If someone remembers I told how I used to use luring tactic to get rid of too-difficult to handle -monsters from open GV:s. Crown GV especially when that was accidentally marked as LV and was very common. I lured those to follow me, teleported to other side and walked in. Removing that made game a lot less interesting to me.

I think I've noticed this second behavior, and it seems to be a flaw in the way monster's sight is calculated. I think I can elaborate on the problem, but it could be that I'm talking about something different. If you're in LOS to a monster and within MAX_SIGHT it can fire on you and track you regardless of whether you are in or out of the monster vision. If, you're not in LOS, and outside of the monster vision value, it will stop moving towards you. So there are situations (long corridor) where the only way to get the monster to track you is to put yourself in the position where it can also attack you. Is this correct? I don't like this behavior either, but I've only noticed it on a handful of occasions. However, that should be enough that we need to remove the inconsistency. The options are:

1) Lower MAX_SIGHT, and the value at which monsters can attack, so that any monster with a ranged attack has vision >= MAX_SIGHT

2) Raise the vision of all monsters with a ranged attack so that they are >= MAX_SIGHT.

3) Lower the value at which monsters and player can attack so that any monster with a ranged attack has vision >= to MAX_ATTACK_DISTANCE

I think 3 is what you want. Right?

[Timo Pietilä]

I think I've noticed this second behavior, and it seems to be a flaw in the way monster's sight is calculated. I think I can elaborate on the problem, but it could be that I'm talking about something different. If you're in LOS to a monster and within MAX_SIGHT it can fire on you and track you regardless of whether you are in or out of the monster vision. If, you're not in LOS, and outside of the monster vision value, it will stop moving towards you. So there are situations (long corridor) where the only way to get the monster to track you is to put yourself in the position where it can also attack you. Is this correct? I don't like this behavior either, but I've only noticed it on a handful of occasions. However, that should be enough that we need to remove the inconsistency. The options are:

1) Lower MAX_SIGHT, and the value at which monsters can attack, so that any monster with a ranged attack has vision >= MAX_SIGHT

2) Raise the vision of all monsters with a ranged attack so that they are >= MAX_SIGHT.

3) Lower the value at which monsters and player can attack so that any monster with a ranged attack has vision >= to MAX_ATTACK_DISTANCE

I think 3 is what you want. Right?

I don't count monster detection range same as visual range IMO. I think that like if every monster has same eyesight as you do and everybody has ESP, but variable poor hearing, so that you can walk right past them in corridor where they are sleeping, but if they are awake they are aware of your position if you are in either their ESP field or direct LoS.

That's how I rationalize their behavior to myself. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense that every monster in the dungeon that is awake and you are in the field of their detection range is automatically aware of your position regardless of your stealth.

3 is correct in that that is what it used to be (attack range was two grids shorter than your visual range).

[Rizwan]

Actually DROP_GOOD doesn't exclude non-weapons / armour, but DROP_EXCELLENT does. DROP_GOOD also has speed-rings, dungeon books and several amulet types.

DROP_EXCELLENT forces item to be at least ego, and that should exclude several of the good-category items, OTOH I think that because of some quirk in the way game generates items that still does generate at least dungeon books, maybe also speed rings and amulets.

You are correct in saying that DROP_GOOD only includes wearables. Maybe at least augmentation, top healing potions, scrolls of acquirement and *acquirement* and some other consumables could be considered as "good" too.

Would it help if drop items were categorized and monsters were given flags for different levels of these categories? For instance a monster could have DROP_CRAPPY_WEAPON | DROP_EXCELLENT_ARMOR | DROP_GOOD_CONSUMABLES etc according to the level of the monster.