[3.5-dev] Targeting monsters detected by ESP

[bio_hazard]

If you have telepathy, does that not imply you would know from the monster's POV whether YOU are in LOS of it? Seems reasonable to me to use that information in cases when LOS can not be determined due to unknown terrain between @ and monster.

[DaviddesJ]

If you have telepathy, does that not imply you would know from the monster's POV whether YOU are in LOS of it?

I don't think telepathy implies the power to know everything that every monster near you knows. That would let you see walls near their locations, other (non-sentient) monsters near them, items near them, traps, etc., etc.

[kaypy]

I think the problem here isn't what monsters are targeted, it is the order of targetting.

At the moment (if I read the original report right) is seems to be whichever is closest of

1. A displayed enemy that you can see and you have known LOS to.
2. A displayed enemy that you can't see but you have known LOS to.
3. A displayed enemy that you can't see and you have uncertain LOS to.
4. A displayed enemy that you can't see and you have blocked LOS to.

wheras what it really needs to be is

1 if available, else 2 if available, else 3 if available else 4.

Maybe with 1 and 2 merged?

[Ingwe Ingweron]

It seems to me that case 4 should never be targetable. Isn't that the situation causing the confusion cited in the initial report, where targeting is trying to lock on to monsters that you are aware of through ESP but that you know are behind walls, blocked LOS?

[DaviddesJ]

I think the problem here isn't what monsters are targeted, it is the order of targetting.

At the moment (if I read the original report right) is seems to be whichever is closest of



wheras what it really needs to be is

1 if available, else 2 if available, else 3 if available else 4.

Maybe with 1 and 2 merged?

I think that would be pretty confusing. I'm not saying it's not possible to implement, or that it couldn't be useful, but a lot of people who haven't read this thread would be surprised and confused by that behavior. Generally it's better to have a system that you don't have to explain to people, because it just behaves in a way that's easy to understand. Closest to furthest does that.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Let me see if I understand correctly:
1. Previously targeting did not attempt to lock-on to ESP detected monsters if they were not in LOS. You could "look" but not "target" to get information on those monsters.
2. A fix was implemented to attempt target-lock on the closest monster of which @ is aware, regardless of LOS, thus preventing @ from simply trying to target an ESP detected monster and thereby glean information about the state of the unknown map between the two.
3. However, the new target-lock also ignores when @ DOES have knowledge of the map.
4. The value of pressing ' to quickly target the closest monster with spell or missile is severely diminished when @ has ESP, since that spell or missile could now go into a wall when the closest monster is not in LOS. Thus, if @ has ESP, now you had better stick with specific targeting to avoid making a quick-targeting mistake; a mistake that wasn't possible before the "fix".

I suppose that's fine, it just seems a huge loss of playing convenience all to avoid giving information in a narrow circumstance.

[DaviddesJ]

Let me see if I understand correctly:
1. Previously targeting did not attempt to lock-on to ESP detected monsters if they were not in LOS. You could "look" but not "target" to get information on those monsters.

I think original Angband would only let you target a monster if you can *see* it. Which requires both LOS to the monster and also lighting (or infravision). At some point, someone said, it would be nice to easily target monsters that you know the location of from ESP, and where the LOS is not blocked. This makes sense, especially since often you know that you have LOS, you have already revealed that portion of the map. But then this introduces the problem that you can check LOS by seeing if you can target a monster.

I think the "best" solution may be that targeting should include monsters that you can see, and also monsters known from ESP unless your LOS to them is known to be blocked (i.e., there is a revealed wall along the path). This covers the common cases (i.e., you won't try to hurl your fireball at the enemy on the other side of a wall near you, as opposed to the one across the room).

BTW, one might also ask, if you fire something like a fireball down a corridor into the dark, and it hits a wall, then should the fireball reveal that wall on the map?

There's also the whole question of, if you revealed part of the map in the past, but something on that map changes, should you know that it changed? This is always an issue.

[PowerWyrm]

Let me see if I understand correctly:
1. Previously targeting did not attempt to lock-on to ESP detected monsters if they were not in LOS. You could "look" but not "target" to get information on those monsters.
2. A fix was implemented to attempt target-lock on the closest monster of which @ is aware, regardless of LOS, thus preventing @ from simply trying to target an ESP detected monster and thereby glean information about the state of the unknown map between the two.
3. However, the new target-lock also ignores when @ DOES have knowledge of the map.
4. The value of pressing ' to quickly target the closest monster with spell or missile is severely diminished when @ has ESP, since that spell or missile could now go into a wall when the closest monster is not in LOS. Thus, if @ has ESP, now you had better stick with specific targeting to avoid making a quick-targeting mistake; a mistake that wasn't possible before the "fix".

I suppose that's fine, it just seems a huge loss of playing convenience all to avoid giving information in a narrow circumstance.

The problem is that you will auto-target something you don't want to target, because "closest" takes precedence over "targetable". It should be the other way round. Otherwise, you will have either to remove ESP when targeting, which is plain stupid, or use manual targeting, which is not convenient in many cases.

[DaviddesJ]

The problem is that you will auto-target something you don't want to target, because "closest" takes precedence over "targetable". It should be the other way round. Otherwise, you will have either to remove ESP when targeting, which is plain stupid, or use manual targeting, which is not convenient in many cases.

How do you think it should work? There's no way to do the "right thing" in *all* cases. You could have a monster a few spaces away that's attacking you at range down a corridor, so that you know you have LOS to it even though it's not visible (but revealed by ESP), and a monster far away that you can actually see. In that case you want the "default" target to be the one you can see? Or do you want to choose the closest target unless the LOS is actually known to be blocked?

[Ingwe Ingweron]

How do you think it should work? There's no way to do the "right thing" in *all* cases. You could have a monster a few spaces away that's attacking you at range down a corridor, so that you know you have LOS to it even though it's not visible (but revealed by ESP), and a monster far away that you can actually see. In that case you want the "default" target to be the one you can see? Or do you want to choose the closest target unless the LOS is actually known to be blocked?

All I know, is that I am finding the new targeting to be a real pain. Even knowing the problem, I've still sent missiles and spells careening into walls in the heat of battle causing near death experiences. This despite having mapped the area and @ knowing what is in LOS and what is not. That said, my problems with the new targeting are two-fold:

1. When @ KNOWS the LOS, targeting the closest monster even though it's not targetable is just plain stupid. It's fraught with player error rather than @ error because hitting ' to or h to get to the closest TARGETABLE monster doesn't work anymore. It seems to me the old way was superior, even though it could "reveal" information about LOS that wasn't known. I suppose "best" would be "default" target closest unless LOS is known to be blocked, but barring the ability to do that, then switching back to the old way would be better than what it is now.

2. Absolute targeting doesn't work so well if there is a monster on the space. Used to be you could set an absolute target on the space and blast away at that monster, kill it, and continue to blast away at that space when the next monster arrived there (or even before the next one arrived). Now, because there is a monster there, the absolute targeting defaults back to the monster, you kill it, then have to retarget the space.

[DaviddesJ]

That seems clear. It seems like it would be best for targeting with Telepathy to consider all monsters except those for which the revealed map demonstrates that LOS is blocked. This shouldn't be that hard to implement. It's just as easy to check whether LOS is blocked as it is to check whether a monster is visible.

It would be a nice adjunct to this if some attacks would reveal what they hit. So if I fire a fireball down a corridor, it should reveal the walls near where it strikes. Probably an arrow shouldn't, though, so this would require treating different attacks differently.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

That seems clear. It seems like it would be best for targeting with Telepathy to consider all monsters except those for which the revealed map demonstrates that LOS is blocked. This shouldn't be that hard to implement. It's just as easy to check whether LOS is blocked as it is to check whether a monster is visible.

It would be a nice adjunct to this if some attacks would reveal what they hit. So if I fire a fireball down a corridor, it should reveal the walls near where it strikes. Probably an arrow shouldn't, though, so this would require treating different attacks differently.

As for certain attacks revealing what they hit, I can only think of a few. firebolt/ball/meteor swarm. Maybe lightning bolt/ball (would the wall crackle with energy for a moment or glow with residual heat?). No others come to mind.

[DaviddesJ]

I would say: Fire spells, Lightning spells, Light spells (of course), Meteor Swarm, possibly Mana Storm and Orb of Draining (I'm not sure what "mana damage" or "holy damage" look like, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were bright).

[PowerWyrm]

Or do you want to choose the closest target unless the LOS is actually known to be blocked?

Exactly that. However, this will require a bit of code to determine if LOS is blocked or not. The old system was "leaking" info by not targeting stuff you could see via ESP, but at least it ensured that you would not cast spells or fire missiles in vain.

[Ingwe Ingweron]

Exactly that. However, this will require a bit of code to determine if LOS is blocked or not. The old system was "leaking" info by not targeting stuff you could see via ESP, but at least it ensured that you would not cast spells or fire missiles in vain.

Yes, right now the cure is worse than the disease!