ZDoom

OH i see. I thought they went after the same enemy since when I uze freeze, spawn some friendlies, unfreeze, they always go after a single monster.

They tend to prefer targets that aren't already in combat.

[quote="Eriance"]Slightly offtopic. Do the friendly mosnters all target the same baddie unless they are attacked by another?[/quote]

Not that I've ever seen. They simply target the closest monster in range.

[quote="HotWax"]I think the bottom line for most people is that this very suggestion has been shot down before by Graf, one of the main coders, with the reasons Zippy has given. If you think you can do better, by all means please try, but you can hardly blame us for leaning towards the "Graf knows what he's talking about" side of things.

From a technical standpoint, the argument makes perfect sense. If you have a map with just 15 enemies and a full complement of 8 players, there are 120 LOS checks (8 * 15) potentially required each tic (assuming that the enemies are either looking for or chasing the players constantly, which is usually the case) under the current system. With your system, that becomes 330 (22 * 15) checks, and that's for a ridiculously small number of enemies. Take a map with 100 monsters, and you're going from 800 checks up to 10,700. Even if you put filters on that (monsters of the same team won't attack each other) and use the REJECT lump, you've still got to cycle through every potential target before eliminating it as a possibility. That's a far cry from the current system where monsters aren't even aware of each others' existance until they get hit by crossfire and switch targets.[/quote]

How does EDGE do it? They had some "SIDE" property that allowed monsters not on the same side to attack each other by giving them a value. Team 1 attacks anything that's not Team one (say 2), but if the team was the sum of another 2 teams, they ally themselves with both.

Slightly offtopic. Do the friendly mosnters all target the same baddie unless they are attacked by another?

I think the bottom line for most people is that this very suggestion has been shot down before by Graf, one of the main coders, with the reasons Zippy has given. If you think you can do better, by all means please try, but you can hardly blame us for leaning towards the "Graf knows what he's talking about" side of things.

From a technical standpoint, the argument makes perfect sense. If you have a map with just 15 enemies and a full complement of 8 players, there are 120 LOS checks (8 * 15) potentially required each tic (assuming that the enemies are either looking for or chasing the players constantly, which is usually the case) under the current system. With your system, that becomes 330 (22 * 15) checks, and that's for a ridiculously small number of enemies. Take a map with 100 monsters, and you're going from 800 checks up to 10,700. Even if you put filters on that (monsters of the same team won't attack each other) and use the REJECT lump, you've still got to cycle through every potential target before eliminating it as a possibility. That's a far cry from the current system where monsters aren't even aware of each others' existance until they get hit by crossfire and switch targets.

After thinking about it, I do not know why I participated in that argument.

I won't lie to you. I [b]know[/b] the system is flawed. It's based on old code that worked in 1992 when it was developed. The only concern back then was killing the player, not other monsters.

Maaan, the difference between their posts... one's truly passive and the other's passive-aggressive.

Like, "sorta-kinda-maybe"-aggressive. Meanwhile, my answer to the "is 100 enough?": no. ZDoom Wars plans to have quite a few more monsters in play than that! A hack that would allow it would likely not be utilized if it had a low limitation like that before it broke or lagged like hell. And I certainly don't want to see a mod in progress get halted due to a broken feature...

[quote="SoulPriestess"]Zippy, if you're upset that I "misinterpreted" what you said as "impossible" not "implausible", I am sorry.[/quote]I'm not upset. I'm actually giggling a little bit, because disagreement and discourse on various topics is a thing I find very enjoyable and engaging. Reading this is kind of fun too because I'm seeing things kind of how DoomRater had originally laid out: you seem to be establishing a defense against an offense I never even mounted.

All I've been doing can be boiled down to a few things: establishing that the factions discussion has taken place before, establishing that the developers no'd it for reasons that the current system isn't particularly suitable for it, providing some technical details on the current system, and correcting some points where you were either in error or were with incomplete information (e.g. friendly monsters activating upon seeing an enemy monster, which is not the case). There hasn't been a part in there where I've tried to lay traps. There hasn't been a part where I've tried to say, "No, don't do it!! Factions in Doom were not meant to be seen by human eyes!" And there hasn't been a part where I've twiddled a handlebar mustache while cackling a little Mwhahahahahaha (though this gives me a great avatar idea). The thing that's irking DoomRater is that you've shorta-kinda-maybe suggested that I have doing some or all of these things. I'm not really bothered because it just makes me think I haven't representing my position clearly in some way... which is kind of why I keep repeating in different ways to try and clarify.

The "interpretation" and "minor details" are actually very important. That's the whole idea behind the "strawman" argument DoomRater mentioned. "Attacking a strawman" is when you frame an argument that [b]looks similar[/b] to the other side's but [b]actually isn't the same thing[/b] (e.g. "The current system isn't really suited to support factions" vs. "It is impossible for the current system to support factions"), and then proceed to attack that new argument. The end result typically doesn't serve the discourse in any meaningful fashion.


If you intend to go in and do some work with the code, then by all means dig in a do a little R&D. Test some builds and collect some numbers to see how much the data aligns with what the developers predicted. That's certainly a good place to start, and it's probably not being done by the core developers because of time and priority issues.

We certainly can take the argument further, which I think I would enjoy because I think there are still things to hash out. E.g.[quote="SoulPriestess"]Maybe... the map won't be able to support more than 100 monsters! So, what then? The mappers will have to do some ACS then, and either deactivate monsters for later reactivation, or spawn them in.[/quote]This leads into questions like "Is 100 monsters good enough? Is that putting too much responsibility on the mapper (or more conversely, putting too weak a feature in the engine?)", etc. etc. etc. If you don't want to argue further, you just have to carry through with what you've said: Don't post a response arguing back. This is internet discourse. It's very unlikely anybody's going to change their minds in the end. And there are no prizes to win. You ceasing to post counter-arguments is [b]not[/b] me winning, nor would I take it as such. I would take it as you losing interest in the argument, or there being nothing left to discuss.

[quote="DoomRater"]"implausible" and "impossible" are two very different meanings. That's quite relevant because it makes you look dishonest for misrepresenting what he said. It's called attacking a strawman.[/quote]

I fail to see where I've misrepresented what he said, to a point of making me look dishonest. Like I said, he is asserting a negative on exactly the same point that I quoted him on.

Either way, it seems your focusing on a detail that has nothing to do with the discussion to begin with, but rather, you want to focus on how I interpreted what he said. Implausible isn't that different of a meaning in the context that it was used. He does not think it's worth doing. That point has been beaten to death, and way beyond death, for a rather large number of posts.

If I offended you, I am truly sorry, but that does not change my position on the matter. If you want to argue semantics, so be it. I personally don't think it's worth it.

If I have pissed you off, again I am truly sorry, but really, I don't see the need to be so upset. Either way, you're fighting to defend a point that I do not acknowledge, because it is a point that is neither here nor there in the entire discussion. It is not relevant. This thread is about enemy AI's, and the feasibility of implementing factions. Not whether something zippy said was "implausible" or "impossible", which both mean almost exactly the same thing with what he said. It's pretty much a "you're wasting your time" post, and I have expressed my disagreement about that.

Zippy, if you're upset that I "misinterpreted" what you said as "impossible" not "implausible", I am sorry.

If you want to argue this thing to death, be my guest. This is my last post on this particular subject, unless something a little more relevant than "Zippy said it was IMPLAUSIBLE!" comes up.

DR, I don't think you should even bother...

"implausible" and "impossible" are two very different meanings. That's quite relevant because it makes you look dishonest for misrepresenting what he said. It's called attacking a strawman.

I've considered that. Maybe I'm not ready. Maybe I won't succeed. Maybe I'll utterly crash my computer into oblivion and it will cease to exist. Maybe I'll take my entire LAN with it.

All maybes.

Then again, maybe I should at least take a look at it, and see what I can do. Not now, though, cause I have to get ready for work tonight, and need some sleep in the meantime.

Maybe you don't understand that I understand perfectly what he was saying, but I don't stress over minor details because they are ... irrelevant.

(sigh)

Something tells me you're not ready to attempt what you want to do with the code, especially if you're unable to figure out exactly what was meant by someone else- how do you expect do to that with the source code?

Either way he's still asserting a negative on the same point. You're arguing an interpretation on minor details, and quite frankly your argument doesn't even seem relevant. Sorry if that bothers you.

...and you just made yourself look dumb. "making it out of the current system isn't the way to go" does not mean "it is impossible to make it out of the current system".