by David Ferstat » Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:40 am
While I second Enjay in loudly cheering the removal of this antique limitation, I don't think that it should be "across-the-board".
I agree that it's unlikely to have much effect upon the original id levels, I can see it changing some third-party maps. If someone has designed a map with enemies deliberately out of range of the player, then I can see that game-play would change if the hitscan range were to suddenly expand this dramatically. Similarly, if the mapper has designed an area wherein the player might have some safety from distant monsters, then, again, things won't work as intended.
I believe that the extended hitscan range should be an option defined in the MAPINFO lump, or similar. In other words, it should be a option set by the designer, NOT the player.
As far as monsters having the same hitscan range as player, well, I don't think that things should be easier than necessary for the player.

While I second Enjay in loudly cheering the removal of this antique limitation, I don't think that it should be "across-the-board".
I agree that it's unlikely to have much effect upon the original id levels, I can see it changing some third-party maps. If someone has designed a map with enemies deliberately out of range of the player, then I can see that game-play would change if the hitscan range were to suddenly expand this dramatically. Similarly, if the mapper has designed an area wherein the player might have some safety from distant monsters, then, again, things won't work as intended.
I believe that the extended hitscan range should be an option defined in the MAPINFO lump, or similar. In other words, it should be a option set by the designer, NOT the player.
As far as monsters having the same hitscan range as player, well, I don't think that things should be easier than necessary for the player. :)