|
Post by phlinn on Apr 22, 2008 9:15:33 GMT -5
I think counter attacks make sense, because to attack he has to reveal himself at least momentarily. Attacking at your whim, not so much. Might depend on the element though. Do any of the elements bypass walls?
|
|
|
Post by sekira on Apr 22, 2008 9:59:23 GMT -5
I find this whole conversation about whether or not you should be able to attack monsters standing in walls very strange.
I've played lots of bands, and iirc you can ALWAYS use a melee attack to attack an insubstantial monster standing in a wall. It might take 0 damage because it is immune to physical (depending on the band) but you could still attack it. The only exception I in my memory is that if a monster is standing in a wall and you can't see it (via invisibility, or blindness, or no light, etc) then if you attack the wall where they stand, you hit the wall instead of the monster, whereas if you did the same thing to a monster you couldn't see that was standing in an open space, you would hit the monster.
In Portralis it has always been the case that you can attack monsters standing in walls, why is there discussion about changing that now?
The only thing I am wondering is that since you can attack monsters standing in walls with regular melee attacks (as it should be), then why wouldn't some of the special melee attacks affect monsters in walls. Especially because any of the spin melee attacks do affect monsters in walls, and I think there are other melee based abilities that also affect monsters in walls, so why not ki punch, accurate strike, and point blank shot (maybe others)?
I don't know, to me, this is like a no brainer... I'm thinking "of course those attacks along with every melee and yes, even magic attack should affect monsters standing in walls." The only exception I can think of is fields, because fields change the nature of non-wall spaces, so they of course shouldn't affect monsters in walls.
I don't know about the realism of it (although plenty of arguments could be made about that too, but I won't go there), but the game balance is obvious. If a monster exposes itself enough to attack you, then it is exposing itself enough to be attacked by you. They are already impossible to catch when fleeing, so they shouldn't be impossible to fight while standing in a wall too.
EDIT: Ok, so I got a little worked up there. Sorry to any that I may have offended. I do still stand by my view, but I shouldn't just dismiss the opposing view or refer to it as "strange" or my own view as "no brainer" which would suggest negative things about the opposing view. That is wrong. Every view has its merit and should be thought out and considered. No view is just stupid. I still say melee against monsters standing in a wall should work, but it was wrong of me to suggest negatives about the opposing view.
|
|
|
Post by Gando on Apr 22, 2008 11:31:55 GMT -5
Sekira said: EDIT: Ok, so I got a little worked up there. Sorry to any that I may have offended. I do still stand by my view, but I shouldn't just dismiss the opposing view or refer to it as "strange" or my own view as "no brainer" which would suggest negative things about the opposing view. That is wrong. Every view has its merit and should be thought out and considered. No view is just stupid. I still say melee against monsters standing in a wall should work, but it was wrong of me to suggest negatives about the opposing view.
I agree...attack the arguement not the arguer? Glad to see you came to your senses before I could take umbrage. Now since you've calmed down and realized or at least vocalized that the opposing view might have some small validity I will admit I see what you mean. My way of thinking has to do with not being able to distinguish them from the wall but the meta mechanics of that are too petty to actually prove/disprove. I see how if they are attacking you they must be exposing themselves to at least retaliation. On the other hand I see ghosts as being one of the harder mobs of the game for players to overcome. Im not sure this is such a bad thing...BUT if only one class has a hard time with them (for instance do magic fields hurt them while they are in the wall?) then it should be fixed so that either all nonphysical attacks have a chance to hurt them or none should. Fair is fair after all. Hope that Ends this particular discussion having avoided any unnecessary bloodshed.
|
|
|
Post by sekira on Apr 24, 2008 14:11:41 GMT -5
I'm not trying to add fuel to a fire, I'm just commenting on an observation I had.
all abilities that make use of a range 1 radius 0 chain attack (such as ki punch, accurate strike, and point blank shot, probably others hard coded) would be "fixed" (assuming it is decided they need to be "fixed") for hitting monsters in walls if the chain attack function was modified only slightly.
The function currently checks a grid location before it inflicts the damage in that location. If the grid is a wall type, then it doesn't inflict damage there, it just quits the attack altogether.
Now, that behavior matches how ball spells work (of course, the wall locations are then hit by the radius burst of the spell, but that is intentional too), so I think it is how chain attacks with radius > 0 should work. It doesn't match how bolt spells work though. The behavior standard for spells with radius 0 is that they do inflict damage in the wall.
basically, the check for a wall should be in place, but should only return before inflicting damage if the chain has a radius > 0, otherwise it should inflict damage and then return.
|
|