Why symmetric line of sight is undesirable

[greycat]

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
............@...##############  "Oh, here I am, running down this corridor."
###############.##############
###############.##############
........s.....................  "Zzzzz"
##############################
##############################
##############################
##############################

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############.##############
###############.##############  @: "Oh my goodness!  A skeleton master archer!"
........s......@..............  
##############################  s: Shoot. Shoot. Shoot.
##############################
##############################
##############################

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############.##############
###############@##############  @: "Run away!  Ouch!"
........s.....................  
##############################  s: Shoot. Shoot. Shoot.
##############################
##############################
##############################

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############@##############  Infusion: Regeneration
###############.##############
.........s....................  "Where human go?  Me follow."
##############################
##############################
##############################
##############################

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############@##############  "There he is.  Last chance to buff."
###############.##############
..............s...............  "Where human go?  Me follow."
##############################
##############################
##############################
##############################

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############@##############  @: Assault!  Shield Pummel!  Death Dance!  Icy claw!
###############s##############
..............................  s: "Ouch!  Ouch!  Ouch!"
##############################
##############################
##############################
##############################

THAT is how the game currently plays. You see a ranged character, and you TAKE COVER. You don't just stand there like an elf admiring a fern! It's called "tactics". I don't know what the objection is, from some players, about using tactics to take advantage of the terrain for your benefit (and survival).

But some players think this is an "abuse". I claim it is no such thing. Let's
rewind that last frame and this time, we'll give the skeleton a brain.

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############@##############  @: "What?  He didn't step right next to me!"
###############.##############
...............s..............  s: "What do you think I am, an idiot?"  Shoot.
##############################
##############################
##############################
##############################

That would be "fixing the AI so it isn't dumber than a sack of troll snot".

But instead of that, some players want something called "symmetric line of sight". These players want this:

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############@##############  "There he is.  Last chance to buff."
###############.##############
..............s...............  "You think so?  Oh, you poor idiot."  Shoot.
##############################
##############################
##############################
##############################

In "symmetric LOS" there is NO PLACE you can ambush a ranged character. None. Any place you stand, you get pincushioned. You have no chance to survive make your time.

(Every other Roguelike game I have ever played has asymmetric line of sight. It's normal. It's expected. It's how we model someone hiding around a corner in ambush. It's how we are able to apply tactics to the battle instead of just mashing the "KILL WITH FIRE" button.)

[Grey]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Zonk]

As the person who started this conversation in chat(being quite interested in seeing how symmetrical LOS would be in play)...thanks for having posting actual examples.

But some players think this is an "abuse". I claim it is no such thing. Let's
rewind that last frame and this time, we'll give the skeleton a brain.

I referred but it was a far more specific case - when you can shoot at something behind a corridor without it doing anything. Which can perhaps also be fixed by making the AI move towards the attack source, yes.

In "symmetric LOS" there is NO PLACE you can ambush a ranged character. None. Any place you stand, you get pincushioned. You have no chance to survive make your time.

You do have a point that perhaps it would be better to fix AI(at least for NPCs meant to be reasonably smart, and dunno if skeletons qualify. Elite versions likely should) before going with symmetrical los.

You are also right that the tactical/balance implications of symmetric LOS should not be underestimated, and it would be an exception compared to most roguelikes(though some *bands do use it).

However, I still think symmetrical LOS is worth at least a try- ways to keep ambushes in the game can certainly be found, and I think it could easily be worth the effort. Could end up being more interesting and encouraging use of terrainm, too: for example, attacking or being attacked at range from behind a corner could have modifier, and the AI might decide to move closer when appropiate.

Or we could have tiles that are see-through(but with a stealth bonus), and can ALSO be shot through, but with a penalty(say low pillars, pedestals, low walls....actually, that'd be a good place to put size modifiers in, too)

[greycat]

Do you have any suggestions for how to implement symmetric or partially-symmetric LOS that don't make ranged characters 20 times as powerful as non-ranged characters?

[tiger_eye]

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############@##############  @: "What?  He didn't step right next to me!"
###############.##############
...............s..............  s: "What do you think I am, an idiot?"  Shoot.
##############################
##############################

Personally, this is how I think ranged AI should behave anyway with the current system.

Regarding where and how to ambush the archer, the melee player will most likely eventually need to chase after the archer, and the archer will either attack and let the player get closer, or move away. When the player get's adjacent to the archer, he or she should probably use a debuff talent or a heavy damage talent. Symmetric LoS or not won't change this.

Code: Select all

##############################
##############################
................##############
###############@##############  "There he is.  Last chance to buff."
###############.##############
..............s...............  "You think so?  Oh, you poor idiot."  Shoot.
##############################
##############################

Perhaps @ and s can't see each other in that situation. Ever think of that?

[Dekar]

Maybe players will use pickaxes now to create ambush spots.

I dont want to say symetric is bad before I played with it. For now I see it as advantage that I know the archer can see me.

[bricks]

Oh yes, I totally want to have to refer to a list of line-of-sight exploits any time I fight a ranged enemy. :/

If the problem is with ambushing ranged attackers, make ranged attacking less ridiculous or give all players the ability to use stealth (re: my suggestion from long, long ago). Abstracting it away with field-of-vision artifacts isn't the way to do it, and it's annoying some line will be drawn between new players and "pros" who happen to know how to exploit the game.

Edit: Another objection. This fails to address a few other issues; one, that escaping from ranged attackers in an open area (that is, a good number of zones) has nothing to do with field-of-vision, and two, asymmetric line-of-sight runs both ways. If your fears are really for the player, know that the player can better utilize information than the AI can.

[greycat]

Oh yes, I totally want to have to refer to a list of line-of-sight exploits any time I fight a ranged enemy. :/

You mean the tactics I've been using in every roguelike game for 25 years? Well, OK, every game except the hack/nethack family where all projectiles move in one of the 8 keypad directions, rather than to arbitrary points.

If your fears are really for the player, know that the player can better utilize information than the AI can.

But the AI gets more information than the player does. Especially bosses. They have full-level Player Character ESP.

[bricks]

You mean the tactics I've been using in every roguelike game for 25 years? Well, OK, every game except the hack/nethack family where all projectiles move in one of the 8 keypad directions, rather than to arbitrary points.

I imagine all of those roguelikes were graphical, had mouse support, tutorials, multiple difficulty levels, multiple lives, unlockable classes, simplified inventory management, etc. Based on my limited experience trying to program a field-of-view algorithm, I'd guess that most roguelikes used asymmetric field-of-view for simplicity's sake.

But the AI gets more information than the player does. Especially bosses. They have full-level Player Character ESP.

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of the boss telepathy. They should explore aggressively, sure, but I don't care for this distinction between players and bosses.

[eronarn]

I'd laugh at your post if it weren't so terrible.

The entire point of asymmetric LOS (as the term is used in roguelikes) is that you don't get the same LOS results if you rotate the map. You only covered one case: asymmetry in favor of the player. Rotate that example around and you'd see asymmetry in favor of the monster! Whenever that happens, ranged opponents can get an attack in on you before you can even see them, and then a second attack (at least) when you take a step to be able to see them. By not taking this case into account you've come to the false conclusion that asymmetric LOS has anything to do with how powerful ranged opponents are. (It doesn't.)

There is absolutely no reason at all to favor asymmetric LOS. It's an artifact of poor or lazy coding. What you seem to actually have a problem with is permissivity, the degree to which terrain blocks LOS. This is completely unrelated to whether LOS is symmetric or not.

[greycat]

It has nothing to do with rotation of the map. Rotate the diagrams 90 degrees and nothing changes. The guy who's standing 2 steps from the intersection has the advantage over someone who approaches the intersection from the other direction. This is tactical positioning. It is not lazy coding, and it is not accidental. It is by design.

[tiger_eye]

Heh, by "rotate", eronarn meant for the player and the enemy to switch places.

Your example in the original post showed the player setting up an ambush against the pursuing enemy. Eronarn's point (and one I agree with) is that, most of the time, asymmetric LoS will result in the player getting attacked by an enemy he or she can't see. This isn't particularly fun, and it can feel a little unfair. Symmetric LoS will put an end to these abuses and unfairness, and I'm sure there will still be plenty of need for tactical positioning.

[edge2054]

Yup, being pinned by an archer you can't see isn't fun.

Luckily I guessed where it was and hit it with a bone grab. Unluckily I did that after two turns of panic had already dropped my hit points to low to survive the rest of the fight.

Permissiveness and symmetry are two separate issues. As to ambushing an archer this is a question of permissiveness. Should corners be blind or not. In other words...

Assuming symmetric LOS permissiveness can be adjusted based on which of these should be true.

LOS?

Code: Select all

###@
s...

LOS?

Code: Select all

###@
.s..

Yes, LOS

Code: Select all

###@
..s.

The last one obviously has LOS. The question is should the top two? If the answer is no to both then the player can still ambush archers around corners regardless of symmetry just by waiting for it to follow. If A is false but B gives LOS then permissiveness favors ranged. If both A and B are false then permissiveness favors melee (and would feel more like a traditional roguelike I think).

[greycat]

Your example in the original post showed the player setting up an ambush against the pursuing enemy. Eronarn's point (and one I agree with) is that, most of the time, asymmetric LoS will result in the player getting attacked by an enemy he or she can't see. This isn't particularly fun, and it can feel a little unfair.

My examples showed an NPC getting the jump on the player as the player came around a blind corner; and then the player realizing what was happening, repositioning, and getting the jump on the NPC as the NPC came around a blind corner.

It seems that almost everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of what "symmetric LOS" will mean. In light of that, I'm willing to wait for someone who's actually coding it to tell us which implementation will be used, before offering further criticism.

[tiger_eye]

It seems that almost everyone in this thread has a different interpretation of what "symmetric LOS" will mean.

I think we all agree that symmetric LoS means that the player can see an enemy if and only if the enemy can see the player. I think the different interpretations come from different expected permissiveness. Symmetric LoS doesn't need to be as permissive as DC:SS.

The following configuration is actually a boundary case that will be frequently encountered:

Code: Select all

@..
##s

As a boundary case, we can choose to allow @ and s to see each other or not. We should choose the case that is more fun, fair, and tactically interesting, which I suppose is up for debate .