Monster gen weirdness in 2.7.6

113 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Harrison

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
Above, In article <twellsD9...@netcom.com> twe...@netcom.com (Tabor J. Wells) writes:

>I had this little bit of weirdness happen to me yesterday playing the PPC
>2.7.6. I was down at ~1100 in the following:

># #
># ##
>#@'
>####

>Now I don't remember whether the door was open or closed when I
>approached it but as soon as I stepped into the doorway I got the message
>"The light hound wakes up." and my situation changed to be:

>#Z#
>#Z##
>#Z@Z
>####

>I checked the message logs and there was no "It summons help" or
>whatever. When I wiped the level there were no summoning monsters to be
>found. Also there were no traps to be found either. So can anyone explain
>how this would have happened in 1 turn?

You wiped the level in a single turn? No I have no explanation for
that, unless you are a really special player... :-)

About the monster summoning...

Well, one instance is odd, but two is a conspiracy.

Anyone have any thoughts on this situation? Note that reportedly, the
player has stepped onto an open door, which *absolutely* precludes the
possibility of a "summon monster" trap.

I will scan through the "summon" code...

Okay, the hounds MUST have appeared via "place_group()", unless
somebody is playing REALLY strange games with the RNG. I am assuming
that all of the hounds were "light hounds", by the way. There are
only four places in the code that call "place_group()", since wizard
mode is not compiled. One is only called during level generation.
The other three are all in "monster.c". One is used to summon escorts
for unique monsters, which is broken anyway in 2.7.6. One is inside
"summon_monster()", which is only called for traps, chests, scrolls,
staffs, and monster summoning. But monster summoning gives a message,
if only "mumbles". Note that summoning "specific" monsters (such as
hounds) never summons a group. This is probably a bug. And you can
not have a trap and an open door in the same grid. This leaves the
last call to "place_group()" which is called from "alloc_monster()"
which is called during level generation, and again, once every few
turns, to place a monster in the dungeon as the player explores. This
function, however, when called from "dungeon.c", requires a minimal
distance of 25 from the player, so that could not be the cause, even
if it seemed likely.

I am left concluding that something impossible happened.

Unless the hounds were each summoned individually via
"place_monster()", which is unlikely, but possible. That would
require a new investigation on "place_monster()", though I could
ignore the places where place_monster() and place_group() are called
in an if/then/else block, and again, the "summon_specific()" calls,
which always yields a message.

Anyone have a clue?

--- Ben ---

Tabor J. Wells

unread,
May 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/30/95
to
I had this little bit of weirdness happen to me yesterday playing the PPC
2.7.6. I was down at ~1100 in the following:

# #
# ##
#@'
####

Now I don't remember whether the door was open or closed when I
approached it but as soon as I stepped into the doorway I got the message
"The light hound wakes up." and my situation changed to be:

#Z#
#Z##
#Z@Z
####

I checked the message logs and there was no "It summons help" or
whatever. When I wiped the level there were no summoning monsters to be
found. Also there were no traps to be found either. So can anyone explain
how this would have happened in 1 turn?

Tabor
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Tabor J. Wells twe...@netcom.com|"All those moments will be lost in time|
| #include <disclaimer.h> | like tears in rain. Time to die." |
----------------------------------------------*from the movie Blade Runner----

Beeblebrox

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
Ben Harrison wrote:
<snip>

"function, however, when called from "dungeon.c", requires a minimal
distance of 25 from the player, so that could not be the cause, even
if it seemed likely.
I am left concluding that something impossible happened."

I once saw monsters created in the same room as I was standing. It definitely
happened within 25 !! Better check the code on that 25 limit, Ben.

--
Jan Jongejan email: jj...@cs.rug.nl
Dept. Comp.Sci.,
Univ. of Groningen, 8-{)
Netherlands.

Christopher L Tate

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
Ben Harrison (be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
:
: Note that summoning "specific" monsters (such as

: hounds) never summons a group. This is probably a bug.

I concur. In addition, summoning a unique who is generally accompanied by
escorts (an entourage?) should, IMHO, also summon the escorts. Could be
nasty, eh? :-)

Monster summoning is another place where a little monster intelligence
could be brought to bear. If the player is hiding in a corridor or a hole
in the wall, summoning isn't going to do much to hurt him/her (unless the
summoned creatures are phase-through-walls types). In that case, it might
make more sense for the summoning monster to instead use the turn to do
something that's actually destructive, such as teleporting the player to
itself, or just hitting him/her, or some such.

Also, for similar reasons I'd like to see some high-powered monsters with
the ability to cast rock-to-mud....

--
Christopher Tate
ct...@world.std.com
http://world.std.com/~ctate/

Ben Harrison

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
Above, In article <3qhhgr$3...@rug4.cs.rug.nl> jj...@cs.rug.nl (Beeblebrox) writes:

>Ben Harrison wrote:
><snip>
>"function, however, when called from "dungeon.c", requires a minimal
> distance of 25 from the player, so that could not be the cause, even
> if it seemed likely.
> I am left concluding that something impossible happened."

>I once saw monsters created in the same room as I was standing. It definitely
>happened within 25 !! Better check the code on that 25 limit, Ben.

Well, I have looked at the code (again), and it certainly *appears* to
state that random monster generation happens occasionally, and when it
does, it makes a single monster, and will not place that monster less
than 25 grids (MAX_SIGHT + 5) from the player. See "dungeon.c" and
"monster.c" for information (look for "alloc_monster()").

If you really saw monsters created (as opposed to summoned), keep your
eyes open for future occurances. Especially in Angband 2.7.6, which
has had slight modifications to that chunk of code. But without
examination I could not tell you if the old versions were broken.

--- Ben ---

Ben Harrison

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
Above, In article <D9GFo...@world.std.com> ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) writes:

>Ben Harrison (be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Note that summoning "specific" monsters (such as
>: hounds) never summons a group. This is probably a bug.

>I concur. In addition, summoning a unique who is generally accompanied by
>escorts (an entourage?) should, IMHO, also summon the escorts. Could be
>nasty, eh? :-)

Actually, summoning a unique causes the unique to be *placed* which
causes (except for the bug in 2.7.6) the escorts to be *placed* (not
summoned). That is, anything causing the "placement" of a unique will
also place its escorts (in a bug-free version).

>Monster summoning is another place where a little monster intelligence
>could be brought to bear. If the player is hiding in a corridor or a hole
>in the wall, summoning isn't going to do much to hurt him/her (unless the
>summoned creatures are phase-through-walls types). In that case, it might
>make more sense for the summoning monster to instead use the turn to do
>something that's actually destructive, such as teleporting the player to
>itself, or just hitting him/her, or some such.

>Also, for similar reasons I'd like to see some high-powered monsters with
>the ability to cast rock-to-mud....

Yeah, they are called Umber Hulks. :-)

> Christopher Tate

--- Ben ---

Billy Tanksley

unread,
May 31, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/31/95
to
ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) wrote to all:
_Also, for similar reasons I'd like to see some high-powered monsters with
_the ability to cast rock-to-mud....

How about making any extremely high-powered attack automatically do some
rockburning (randomly, he don't want just a clean circle of no-rock)? I've
always thought that Angalacon[?] should melt a lot of rock. Well, make that
any high-powered fire/plasma/nether/chaos/mana bolt. I don't think poison
or cold or lightning could really do that much.

_ Christopher Tate

-Billy

Christopher L Tate

unread,
Jun 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/1/95
to
Ben Harrison (be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Above, In article <D9GFo...@world.std.com> ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) writes:
: >
: >Also, for similar reasons I'd like to see some high-powered monsters with
: >the ability to cast rock-to-mud....

:
: Yeah, they are called Umber Hulks. :-)

... and Black Reavers. But I think this is differerent; those monsters
just bore tunnels as they move; I want nasty critters that summon, and can
also cast rock-to-mud on an arbitrary (in LoS, of course) spot, to clear it
out - enabling the summoned monsters to get at the player.

Maybe one of the very-high-level Mage-type monsters could have this; it would
certain serve to better distinguish a Mage from a Sorceror from a ....

(Basically, I think summoning could be a lot deadlier than it is, *especially*
in Morgoth's case - he tends to summon a cloud of nasties, then kill or strand
them by causing an earthquake.)

Great Cthulhu

unread,
Jun 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/1/95
to
be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Ben Harrison) writes:

>Above, In article <D9GFo...@world.std.com> ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) writes:

>>Also, for similar reasons I'd like to see some high-powered monsters with
>>the ability to cast rock-to-mud....

>Yeah, they are called Umber Hulks. :-)

He said 'high powered.' B^)

Anyway, don't Nightgaunts or somesuch do that as well? Now THOSE are
high-powered... Brrr!

--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"Hell has our phone number." - DEC "I'll bet it does!" - Me
GS d-(+) H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v C++ UH++(++++) P--- L- 3- E N++ K W--- M+ V--
po- Y+ t+ 5- j R++ G+('') tv b+++ !D B--- e++>++++ u+ h---(*) f r+++ n- y+++

Andrew Richard Doull

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) writes:

>Ben Harrison (be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:


>: Above, In article <D9GFo...@world.std.com> ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) writes:
>: >
>: >Also, for similar reasons I'd like to see some high-powered monsters with
>: >the ability to cast rock-to-mud....
>:
>: Yeah, they are called Umber Hulks. :-)

>... and Black Reavers. But I think this is differerent; those monsters


>just bore tunnels as they move; I want nasty critters that summon, and can
>also cast rock-to-mud on an arbitrary (in LoS, of course) spot, to clear it
>out - enabling the summoned monsters to get at the player.

>Maybe one of the very-high-level Mage-type monsters could have this; it would
>certain serve to better distinguish a Mage from a Sorceror from a ....

>(Basically, I think summoning could be a lot deadlier than it is, *especially*
>in Morgoth's case - he tends to summon a cloud of nasties, then kill or strand
>them by causing an earthquake.)

I was always perplexed by the way summoning monsters summoned them around the
place the player was. IMHO, a monster should summon monsters to where it is.
This would enaable monsters out of sight to call up reinforcements, and monsters
in sight but at range to shield themselves with a whole lot of easier guys.
Perhaps some sort of intelligent distrubution as to where summoned monsters
should be placed (As to cause maximum player suffering)...

A.D.Venturer


Beeblebrox

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
ado...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Andrew Richard Doull) writes:
<snip, story about why summoning monsters should summon around themselves,
instead of around the player character>
Nooooooo, they want the summoned monsters to attack you immediately. So,
they summon them around you.
Btw., did anyone ever experience acidic cytoplasms summoned by a monster?
*nasty* :)

David Sward

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
In article <0GCplSq6E8PI079yn@san_marcos.csusm.edu>,

That would be cool, although I guess you've never seen a rock blasted
by lightning? I don't think that nether should do rock damage though.
I don't know how digging is actually done (whether the rock has an
amount of "points" that are subtracted with each tunnel executed, or
whether it's just random based on the type of rock, digger and
strength), but if it's the first method, it would be neat to have the
attacks weaken the rock, so successive attacks start destroying the
rock progressively.
--
David Sward sw...@clark.net

Billy Tanksley

unread,
Jun 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/2/95
to
sw...@clark.net (David Sward) wrote to all:
_Billy Tanksley <tanksley@san_marcos.csusm.edu> wrote:

_>How about making any extremely high-powered attack automatically do some
_>rockburning (randomly, he don't want just a clean circle of no-rock)? I've
_>always thought that Angalacon[?] should melt a lot of rock. Well, make that
_>any high-powered fire/plasma/nether/chaos/mana bolt. I don't think poison
_>or cold or lightning could really do that much.

_That would be cool, although I guess you've never seen a rock blasted
_by lightning? I don't think that nether should do rock damage though.

Oh, I was just making a list. Yes, you're right about the lightning.
Nether, however, probably should be able to remove rock-- after all, it can
level teleport you.

_I don't know how digging is actually done (whether the rock has an
_amount of "points" that are subtracted with each tunnel executed, or
_whether it's just random based on the type of rock, digger and
_strength), but if it's the first method, it would be neat to have the
_attacks weaken the rock, so successive attacks start destroying the
_rock progressively.

For attacks like fire, that would be logical. For nether, though, the rock
should just get an all-or-nothing roll. (For Chaos, should it be changed to
another type of rock or rubble?)

I suspect that battlegrounds would look a lot different after these changes
:).

_David Sward sw...@clark.net

-Billy

Anodos Lucas

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
In article <3qnc59$9...@rug4.cs.rug.nl>, jj...@cs.rug.nl (Beeblebrox) wrote:


> Nooooooo, they want the summoned monsters to attack you immediately. So,
> they summon them around you.
> Btw., did anyone ever experience acidic cytoplasms summoned by a monster?
> *nasty* :)
> --

I had a great time the other day when my 35th level Dunadan paladin ran
into a Lesser Titan on about 2000 or so...along with Castamir...before the
battle was over Medusa, Uvatha, Adunaphel the Quiet and Ren the Unclean
were in the battle (!!!) along with a demonologist, Balrogs, reptiles, and
undead galore. It was the hairiest fight I'd ever been in. Each monster
kept summoning another unique that could summon! I think I survived mainly
because the chamber was so stuffed with monsters that their
spells/breath/etc. kept hitting *other* monsters. I'm sure my speed,
*healing*, and restore mana potions helped, too ;) Of course, without free
action there would be one more Dunadan ghost haunting the damp halls of
Angband...

--
Anodos Lucas
tutu...@rahul.net

"...and all Light sleeps in Elysium."

Theodore Milker

unread,
Jun 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/4/95
to
In article tanksley@san_marcos.csusm.edu (Billy Tanksley) writes:
>
>Oh, I was just making a list. Yes, you're right about the lightning.
>Nether, however, probably should be able to remove rock-- after all, it can
>level teleport you.

Does level teleport your around a level or to another level? If it
teleports you to a random location in the level, why not make the rock do
this? It'd be fun to be walking down a hall after fighting a nether
creature and having it blocked off because of some new rock formation >:)

>-Billy

Ted M.

--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to

In article <D9Hyw...@world.std.com>, ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) writes:
|>Ben Harrison (be...@linc.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
|>: Above, In article <D9GFo...@world.std.com> ct...@world.std.com (Christopher L Tate) writes:
|>: >
|>: >Also, for similar reasons I'd like to see some high-powered monsters with
|>: >the ability to cast rock-to-mud....
|>:
|>: Yeah, they are called Umber Hulks. :-)
|>
|>... and Black Reavers. But I think this is differerent; those monsters
|>just bore tunnels as they move; I want nasty critters that summon, and can
|>also cast rock-to-mud on an arbitrary (in LoS, of course) spot, to clear it
|>out - enabling the summoned monsters to get at the player.
|>
|>Maybe one of the very-high-level Mage-type monsters could have this; it would
|>certain serve to better distinguish a Mage from a Sorceror from a ....
|>
|>(Basically, I think summoning could be a lot deadlier than it is, *especially*
|>in Morgoth's case - he tends to summon a cloud of nasties, then kill or strand
|>them by causing an earthquake.)

I really like this and it would be very useful when combined with monsters
who can target the player.

Imagine, you run behind a wall to rest a couple of turns (only a couple
with tracking and or flowing) not missing a beat the nasty beams the rock
away and summons your favorite hounds to give you something to play with.

|>
|>--
|> Christopher Tate
|> ct...@world.std.com
|> http://world.std.com/~ctate/
|>

--
Cliff Stamp
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca


Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp

unread,
Jun 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/5/95
to

In article <dRvplSq6EGw2079yn@san_marcos.csusm.edu>, tanksley@san_marcos.csusm.edu (Billy Tanksley) writes:
|>sw...@clark.net (David Sward) wrote to all:
|>_Billy Tanksley <tanksley@san_marcos.csusm.edu> wrote:
|>
|>_>How about making any extremely high-powered attack automatically do some
|>_>rockburning (randomly, he don't want just a clean circle of no-rock)? I've
|>_>always thought that Angalacon[?] should melt a lot of rock. Well, make that
|>_>any high-powered fire/plasma/nether/chaos/mana bolt. I don't think poison
|>_>or cold or lightning could really do that much.
|>
|>_That would be cool, although I guess you've never seen a rock blasted
|>_by lightning? I don't think that nether should do rock damage though.
|>
|>Oh, I was just making a list. Yes, you're right about the lightning.
|>Nether, however, probably should be able to remove rock-- after all, it can
|>level teleport you.

Isn't that a nexus effect?

|>
|>_I don't know how digging is actually done (whether the rock has an
|>_amount of "points" that are subtracted with each tunnel executed, or
|>_whether it's just random based on the type of rock, digger and
|>_strength), but if it's the first method, it would be neat to have the
|>_attacks weaken the rock, so successive attacks start destroying the
|>_rock progressively.
|>
|>For attacks like fire, that would be logical. For nether, though, the rock
|>should just get an all-or-nothing roll. (For Chaos, should it be changed to
|>another type of rock or rubble?)
|>
|>I suspect that battlegrounds would look a lot different after these changes
|>:).
|>

It would make fighting a lot harder as well as the gaping holes would
allow a lot of monsters to include you in thier line of sight.

This ties in nicely with targetting monsters by esp and the monster flowing,
you phase door out of a room to rest and BAM the Great Hell Wyrm toasts
the wall you are hiding behind, burning you nicely as well.

Imagine this happening near an undead pit. But walking around an undead
pit is a bit silly anyway.


|>_David Sward sw...@clark.net
|>
|>-Billy
|>

--
Cliff Stamp
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca


Ben Harrison

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
Above, In article <3r0o27$d...@net.auckland.ac.nz> ado...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Andrew Richard Doull) writes:
>jj...@cs.rug.nl (Beeblebrox) writes:

>>ado...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Andrew Richard Doull) writes:
>><snip, story about why summoning monsters should summon around themselves,
>> instead of around the player character>

>>Nooooooo, they want the summoned monsters to attack you immediately. So,
>>they summon them around you.
>>Btw., did anyone ever experience acidic cytoplasms summoned by a monster?
>>*nasty* :)
>>--

>I have seen many messages about the best way to min/max against summoning
>monsters and other summoning effects by standing in dead-ends or corridors or
>otherwise. This prevents nearly as many monsters being summoned as would
>occur in an open room.
>Additionally, consider the situation where a monster summons monsters against
>you two turns in a row. The first turn, a number of monsters appear. The
>second turn, none will appear because you are already surrounded by monsters.
>These two problems could be solved by a summoning routine which places summoned
>monsters in optimal positions between you and the creature that summons them.
>(Including both endpoints).

>Opinions?

>A.D.Venturer

I will be modifying the "summon" routines slightly so that summoned
monsters will appear next to the player if possible, then near the
player, then a little farther away, etc, probably up to a maximum
distance of about three grids.

Also, note that I am adding a new ability, "MOVE_BODY", which lets a
monster "push past" a weaker monster (instead of "eating" it) on its
way towards the player. SImilar to the handling of the "dog" in
nethack in some versions. This should prevent, say, monsters with
escorts from being hampered by their own escorts.

--- Ben ---


Andrew Richard Doull

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to

Billy Tanksley

unread,
Jun 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/6/95
to
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp) wrote to all:
_tanksley@san_marcos.csusm.edu (Billy Tanksley) writes:
_|>sw...@clark.net (David Sward) wrote to all:
_|>_>How about making any extremely high-powered attack automatically do some
_|>_>rockburning (randomly, he don't want just a clean circle of no-rock)? I've
_|>_>always thought that Angalacon[?] should melt a lot of rock. Well, make that
_|>_>any high-powered fire/plasma/nether/chaos/mana bolt. I don't think poison
_|>_>or cold or lightning could really do that much.

_|>_That would be cool, although I guess you've never seen a rock blasted
_|>_by lightning? I don't think that nether should do rock damage though.

_|>Oh, I was just making a list. Yes, you're right about the lightning.
_|>Nether, however, probably should be able to remove rock-- after all, it can
_|>level teleport you.

_Isn't that a nexus effect?

Ah. Thank you for reminding me, although I'm sure if you hadn't some
monster would soon have :).

_|>I suspect that battlegrounds would look a lot different after these changes
_|>:).

_It would make fighting a lot harder as well as the gaping holes would
_allow a lot of monsters to include you in thier line of sight.

Which is appropriate for these higher level monsters-- they SHOULD have a
different strategy.

_This ties in nicely with targetting monsters by esp and the monster flowing,
_you phase door out of a room to rest and BAM the Great Hell Wyrm toasts
_the wall you are hiding behind, burning you nicely as well.

Monsters currently can't shoot if they can't see you (unless targetting is
compiled and on), I think, and even if it is, the monsters will shoot for
where they last saw you, not for where you are ('cause they don't know).

_Imagine this happening near an undead pit. But walking around an undead
_pit is a bit silly anyway.

I certainly would not be accused of such lack of restraint.

_ Cliff Stamp

-Billy

Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp

unread,
Jun 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/9/95
to

Right now I just do this

=W=
=@=
===

now the W cannot summon anything (some monsters that make you return
can screw this nicely).

However, if you wanted to be really nasty, just generate the monsters
in line of sight of the player


L
L
L
=W=
=@=
===

Make this a factor of intelligence of course, and it would be much
harder to handle monsters that summon. With the suggested change
of monsters arriving "awake" it would be even more so.

Really nice for the high level demigod.

|>A.D.Venturer
|>
|>

--
Cliff Stamp
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca


Ben Harrison

unread,
Jun 9, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/9/95
to

>=W=
>=@=
>===

I am considering a nasty spell for monsters called "TELE_SWAP" (to
bring the teleporter spells up to four spells). This spell, if
successful (resistable by resist nexus), will swap the player location
with the monster location. Combined with summoning, it is pretty nasty.

>However, if you wanted to be really nasty, just generate the monsters
>in line of sight of the player


> L
> L
> L
>=W=
>=@=
>===

>Make this a factor of intelligence of course, and it would be much
>harder to handle monsters that summon. With the suggested change
>of monsters arriving "awake" it would be even more so.

>Really nice for the high level demigod.

>|>A.D.Venturer
>|>
>|>

>--
> Cliff Stamp
> sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca

I have been considering increasing the "summon range" from one to two.
This would allow summoned monsters to appear two grids away if all the
adjacent grids were full. :-)

--- Ben ---

Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp

unread,
Jun 12, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/12/95
to

In article <3oFrlSq6EKrC079yn@san_marcos.csusm.edu>, tanksley@san_marcos.csusm.edu (Billy Tanksley) writes:
|>sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca (Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp) wrote to all:
|>_tanksley@san_marcos.csusm.edu (Billy Tanksley) writes:
|>_|>sw...@clark.net (David Sward) wrote to all:
|>_|>_>How about making any extremely high-powered attack automatically do some
|>_|>_>rockburning (randomly, he don't want just a clean circle of no-rock)? I've
|>_|>_>always thought that Angalacon[?] should melt a lot of rock. Well, make that
|>_|>_>any high-powered fire/plasma/nether/chaos/mana bolt. I don't think poison
|>_|>_>or cold or lightning could really do that much.
|>
|>_|>_That would be cool, although I guess you've never seen a rock blasted
|>_|>_by lightning? I don't think that nether should do rock damage though.
|>
|>_|>Oh, I was just making a list. Yes, you're right about the lightning.
|>_|>Nether, however, probably should be able to remove rock-- after all, it can
|>_|>level teleport you.
|>
|>_Isn't that a nexus effect?
|>
|>Ah. Thank you for reminding me, although I'm sure if you hadn't some
|>monster would soon have :).
|>
|>_|>I suspect that battlegrounds would look a lot different after these changes
|>_|>:).
|>
|>_It would make fighting a lot harder as well as the gaping holes would
|>_allow a lot of monsters to include you in thier line of sight.
|>
|>Which is appropriate for these higher level monsters-- they SHOULD have a
|>different strategy.
|>

My feeling exactly.

|>_This ties in nicely with targetting monsters by esp and the monster flowing,
|>_you phase door out of a room to rest and BAM the Great Hell Wyrm toasts
|>_the wall you are hiding behind, burning you nicely as well.
|>
|>Monsters currently can't shoot if they can't see you (unless targetting is
|>compiled and on), I think, and even if it is, the monsters will shoot for
|>where they last saw you, not for where you are ('cause they don't know).
|>

How about letting them "sense" you, I mean most animals have a high
sense of smell, and could at least get a direction of where you went.

So say you fight the Wyrm and phase door away


= = =
= = =
= D@= =
= = =
=========

to

= = =
= = =
= D =@ =
= = =
=========

So how about letting it have a chance of hearing,smelling (or just
sensing you by magical means) and then targetting, with the chance
becoming less likely the further you are away.

Make the magical sensing an ability (based on spell casting intelligence?),
and the senses a function of level.

This would only come into play a high levels. Basically I would like for
the really high level monsters to be more powerful in their spell casting
abilities. And not be fooled by a simple phase door.


|>_Imagine this happening near an undead pit. But walking around an undead
|>_pit is a bit silly anyway.
|>
|>I certainly would not be accused of such lack of restraint.
|>

Actually this was one of my favorite methods in PC 1.4, I had very good
stealth so I would walk right up to it, switch on Calris, and back away

A bit silly, and often got me into trouble when there were Black Reavers
in bunches. But kept the game exciting anyway.

|>_ Cliff Stamp

Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp

unread,
Jun 13, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/13/95
to

Definately, but this would seem to be a more powerful summon, so it
would only be available to the more powerful monsters and not say
a gnome mage.

Thus a starting player could still dig tunnels and such to get away,
but later you would have to think of something else.

Right now unless a monster can teleport you , summoning is useless to
it no matter how powerful it is.

--
Cliff Stamp
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca


David Sward

unread,
Jun 13, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/13/95
to
In article <3rjrca$8...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp <sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> wrote:
[re: TELE_SWAP]

>
>Definately, but this would seem to be a more powerful summon, so it
>would only be available to the more powerful monsters and not say
>a gnome mage.
>
>Thus a starting player could still dig tunnels and such to get away,
>but later you would have to think of something else.
>
>Right now unless a monster can teleport you , summoning is useless to
>it no matter how powerful it is.

I just had a related idea (perhaps spawned by this new spell) - allow
certain uniques to be able to "pick up" the character and switch
positions. It's not as powerful as TELE_SWAP (must be adjacent) but
combined with the new "push" ability it would allow, say, Ugluk to
wade past his escorts, switch positions with the character, and have
him on one side (assuming a corridor) and a whole line of his
followers on the other side. Nasty!
--
David Sward sw...@clark.net

Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp

unread,
Jun 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/19/95
to

In article <3rktdo$m...@clark.net>, sw...@clark.net (David Sward) writes:
|>In article <3rjrca$8...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
|>Clifford Francis Joseph Stamp <sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> wrote:
|>[re: TELE_SWAP]
|>>
|>>Definately, but this would seem to be a more powerful summon, so it
|>>would only be available to the more powerful monsters and not say
|>>a gnome mage.
|>>
|>>Thus a starting player could still dig tunnels and such to get away,
|>>but later you would have to think of something else.
|>>
|>>Right now unless a monster can teleport you , summoning is useless to
|>>it no matter how powerful it is.
|>
|>I just had a related idea (perhaps spawned by this new spell) - allow
|>certain uniques to be able to "pick up" the character and switch
|>positions. It's not as powerful as TELE_SWAP (must be adjacent) but
|>combined with the new "push" ability it would allow, say, Ugluk to

What's the earliest version with the push ability, it really sounds nice.

|>wade past his escorts, switch positions with the character, and have
|>him on one side (assuming a corridor) and a whole line of his
|>followers on the other side. Nasty!

How about extending it to some of the monsters that summon as well?

|>--
|>David Sward sw...@clark.net
|>

--
Cliff Stamp
sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages