adS
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 214
Registered: 05-02-2010
IP: Logged

File: drodscreen65.jpg (115.5 KB)
Downloaded 692 times.
License: Public Domain

I never noticed this:

When an eye looks at a mirror, I stand behind it an am "invisible" the eye does not see me even when I am within visibility range. See here
.

Is this intended?

adS

____________________________
pauca sed matura

Jacob
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3746
Registered: 10-01-2004
IP: Logged

Nice find.

This is likely a bug (and should be moved to the bugs board). I can't think of any reason why the eye shouldn't wake up.

____________________________
New to DROD? You may want to read this.
My Holds and Levels:

adS
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 214
Registered: 05-02-2010
IP: Logged

Maybe, this "feature" is used in some holds...

I noticed this while playing "Hade's stronghold" - see architecture board -and gavgav123 seems to use it.

____________________________
pauca sed matura

bomber50
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 872
Registered: 09-18-2006
IP: Logged

To clarify the bug a bit, it does not seem to matter if the mirror is directly next to the eye or if Beethro is directly behind the eye, in all these cases the eye still won't wake up.

Changing this game behavior, could of course, break a few rooms/demos. But it seems so bizarre that it really has to be changed I think.

TFMurphy
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3118
Registered: 06-11-2007
IP: Logged

It's a deliberate mechanic.

When invisible, you're only detected at close range because the enemy can smell or hear you.

Mirrors reflect light. They do not reflect smells or sounds.

Given those two premises, waking up an eye from behind while invisible cannot work -- the mirror simply cannot alert the eye to your presence.

---

[Last edited by TFMurphy at 05-23-2014 07:11 PM]

adS
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 214
Registered: 05-02-2010
IP: Logged

TFMurphy wrote:
It's a deliberate mechanic.

When invisible, you're only detected at close range because the enemy can smell or hear you.

Mirrors reflect light. They do not reflect smells or sounds.

Given those two premises, waking up an eye from behind while invisible cannot work -- the mirror simply cannot alert the eye to your presence.

This is a very weak argument. If I am "invisible" the eye does not smell me unless it can see me directly.

I think it should be changed unless there are too many rooms that use it. Of course, it would be hard/impossible to find such rooms. I have tried to find any postings/documentation regarding this really strange behavior - nothing.

____________________________
pauca sed matura

---

[Last edited by adS at 05-23-2014 07:25 PM]

TFMurphy
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3118
Registered: 06-11-2007
IP: Logged

adS wrote:
This is a very weak argument. If I am "invisible" the eye does not smell me unless it can see me directly.

Sleeping eyes only care about what's exactly in front of them. They don't wake up if you're walking around behind them, whether visible or close enough to smell. They *do* wake up if a mirror in their line of sight reveals you, but as noted, mirrors don't reflect smells. You're attributing a property to invisibility that has never been described as such.

Even if the argument is made that it should be changed, you haven't described exactly how it should be changed, and why it should work like that:

* If the mirror is really far away, should the eye wake up if you're behind it and you're within those 5 squares? Why? It certainly couldn't see you if you were standing where the Mirror was, so this can't be "invisibility fails when you're close enough to see some difference".

* If the mirror is really close, should the distance to the mirror be included in the 5-tile detection distance? Does this make it more or less intuitive? If included, then even if the Mirror was *right* next to the Eye, you'd have to be 4 tiles behind the Eye (not 5) before it'd detect you. And subtract 2 tiles from that for every tile the Mirror is moved away.

===

With stuff like this to consider, I'm finding "if invisible, reflections don't work on you" to be a very simple rule compared to the considerations based on if reflections *do* work.

adS
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 214
Registered: 05-02-2010
IP: Logged

Apparently Jacob, bomber and I do believe that this behavior is nor reasonable.

adS




____________________________
pauca sed matura

Doom
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3226
Registered: 07-05-2004
IP: Logged

TFMurphy wrote: They *do* wake up if a mirror in their line of sight reveals you, but as noted, mirrors don't reflect smells.

Do they have to reflect the smell? We're assuming here that eyeballs can only smell in a perfectly straight line. It makes sense with vision, but I'm not sure smell is so obvious. I mean, every other monster in the game notices you if you enter their smell radius from behind.

Obviously being close isn't enough to wake an eye. They must depend a lot on their vision. So... my preferred explanation is this:
Get close to an eye? Enough to make it aware that something is close and raise its alertness just enough that it can notice the slight vibrations when you enter its line of sight (which of course is reflected).

bwross
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 376
Registered: 04-17-2005
IP: Logged

TFMurphy wrote:
It's a deliberate mechanic.

When invisible, you're only detected at close range because the enemy can smell or hear you.

Mirrors reflect light. They do not reflect smells or sounds.

Given those two premises, waking up an eye from behind while invisible cannot work -- the mirror simply cannot alert the eye to your presence.

Yes, except that they're evil eyes, not evil noses (wake up when you're 5 squares away) or evil ears (wake up when a sufficiently loud event occurs nearby) or evil hands (wake up and attack anything moving adjacent) or evil tongues (probably similar to hands?). As eyes they wake up to visual cues... so invisibility must not be complete, only camouflage that's good enough with enough range (like spiders). It can't be just smell/sound that get's evil eyes to wake up when you're invisible, because then there would be the issue of why they don't use those senses when you're not. The ability of evil eyes to be woken up while you're invisible is the reason why I've never bought the whole "smell range" reasoning for it.

So, yeah, I think it's most consistent if evil eyes do wake up when the virtual image in the mirror appears to the eye to be no more than five away.

---

[Last edited by bwross at 05-23-2014 09:59 PM]

Jacob
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3746
Registered: 10-01-2004
IP: Logged

I don't actually think there is a good explanation to fit all these cases unfortunately.

On reflection (hah!), TFMurphy's explanation certainly requires the simplest implementation, but why does an invisible Beethro ever wake an eye, if it needs to SEE him to wake? - there doesn't seem to be a unifying explanation that fits all the behaviour.

The only viable alternative here I can see is to say that the whole smelling thing is just a silly and inaccurate way of saying that "Monsters that are within 5x5 of an invisible Beethro act as they normally would do if Beethro weren't invisible." This is certainly consistent for the behaviour of every other monster (including brains for whom their behaviour is to direct monsters to Beethro). I think that this is probably how most players view the invisibility mechanic, and therefore why the described behaviour seems counterintuitive.

Thus, if Beethro is within range of the eye, then one would expect it to act like it normally would do. Thus it would not care how far away mirrors are - it will see the player behind them as long as the player is 5 or fewer tiles away from it (i.e. the eye is within the 5x5 range of the player).

I don't know which alternative is better, or it is worth making any changes. We would have to change the justification for the 5x5 range to something other than smell.



____________________________
New to DROD? You may want to read this.
My Holds and Levels:

---

[Last edited by Jacob at 05-28-2014 12:21 AM]

Moo
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 224
Registered: 10-14-2006
IP: Logged

Well, if we say the invisibility is "imperfect", and eyes with their acute vision can still see you when you get close enough (close enough that other creatures could smell you), then with mirrors, several explanations could work...
1) The mirror reduces the clarity of vision sufficiently that the ability to see the invisibility is broken.
2) The mirror reflects the image "well", and so the invisibility is seen with the same range (so total distance eye-mirror-you must be small enough).
3) The peculiarities of the mirror and the eye's vision mean that the position of the mirror is irrelevant, and only only the distance between the invisible person and the eye is important.

3 means the square should work as expected (you are seen by a reflected beam, as long as you are in smell range)... 1 and 2 are the most logical/easily explainable, but as 2 is the least intuitive, and 1 is the current behaviour, I expect 1 is how it'll stay...

adS
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 214
Registered: 05-02-2010
IP: Logged

Jacob wrote:
The only viable alternative here I can see is to say that the whole smelling thing is just a silly and inaccurate way of saying that "Monsters that are within 5x5 of an invisible Beethro act as they normally would do if Beethro weren't invisible." This is certainly consistent for the behaviour of every other monster (including brains for whom their behaviour is to direct monsters to Beethro). I think that this is probably how most players view the invisibility mechanic, and therefore why the described behaviour seems counterintuitive.

This is exactly what I think, too.

For me drod is an abstract one-person game and - frankly speaking - I don't care for interpretations like Wraithwings are cowards or "smelling" and so on.

Anyway, If some architects tell us that they have already used this strange behaviour, do not change it and we should add it to the monster movement thread and the user help.

Otherwise I believe it should be changed.

Eyes don't smell otherwise they would be noses.

adS

____________________________
pauca sed matura

TFMurphy
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3118
Registered: 06-11-2007
IP: Logged

Eyes can't harm Beethro, otherwise they would be claws or mouths.

Describing functions attributed to Evil Eyes as limited to exactly what eyes can do is silly.

adS
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 214
Registered: 05-02-2010
IP: Logged

TFMurphy wrote:
Eyes can't harm Beethro, otherwise they would be claws or mouths.

Describing functions attributed to Evil Eyes as limited to exactly what eyes can do is silly.

Do you know what irony is?

The whole discussion is getting silly. This is definitely my last posting on this thread.

Happy smelling

adS

____________________________
pauca sed matura

bwross
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 376
Registered: 04-17-2005
IP: Logged

TFMurphy wrote:
Eyes can't harm Beethro, otherwise they would be claws or mouths.

Describing functions attributed to Evil Eyes as limited to exactly what eyes can do is silly.

Claws and mouths aren't the only way to harm someone. There are plenty of ways that an eyeball monster can kill. Most likely secreted toxins that paralyze and dissolve, because that's the simplest way for something that's pretty much going to be covered with mucous membranes. But that isn't important to the discussion... although it is a way to try and dismiss any discussion with the old "one fantastic element means assuming all fantastic elements" fallacy.

Having eyes only using smell/hearing when Beethro is invisible, and in a way that's very unlike how those senses work, but much more like how vision works is far more silly. It's clear that they're using sight, which is most sensible by Occam's Razor and the fact that they're eyes. It isn't about limiting them to just eye things... it's about them being eyes, so, of course, eye things will always make the most sense and the simplest explanations. Other explanations are inherently inferior.

TFMurphy
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3118
Registered: 06-11-2007
IP: Logged

bwross wrote:
Having eyes only using smell/hearing when Beethro is invisible, and in a way that's very unlike how those senses work, but much more like how vision works is far more silly. It's clear that they're using sight, which is most sensible by Occam's Razor and the fact that they're eyes. It isn't about limiting them to just eye things... it's about them being eyes, so, of course, eye things will always make the most sense and the simplest explanations. Other explanations are inherently inferior.

Your argument was "they can't smell/hear because they're eyes", which is just as silly when we're describing an eyeball monster that functions exactly the same as most other monsters once it's awake. Why can't they use all available senses and only wake up if they *detect* something in front of them?

And I'll note that 'reflected images within 5 squares' gives us a mechanic that only works if the Mirror is 1 or 2 tiles in front of the Eye, and is thus very restrictive and potentially even *more* unintuitive as a gameplay mechanic. So it's not a solution I would like to aim for.

===

As is, Doom's come closest to an adequate alternate explanation. I maintain that the current mechanics is simple both in gameplay abstraction and explanation, but I don't see much wrong with Doom's either.

But as for whether it's been used much in published holds... it'll take a good 2-3 weeks before we can know that for sure, so I'm not going to rush this -- I have plenty of other things to be looking at in the meantime. If you want to continue and try to reach some sort of consensus or superior explanation/solution, then be my guest. But I would appreciate if you'd keep in mind gameplay concerns, how eyes act when awake, and how eyes compare to other monsters.

bwross
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 376
Registered: 04-17-2005
IP: Logged

TFMurphy wrote:
Your argument was "they can't smell/hear because they're eyes", which is just as silly when we're describing an eyeball monster that functions exactly the same as most other monsters once it's awake.

No, my argument is that as far as sensing and detecting goes, for a creature that's nothing but a eyeball, the correct answer is always sight. And that bringing in cosmetic things like how they can kill, just isn't important to the issue of detection. An elephant has a trunk on one end, but to the person who sweeps the cages, it's the fact that the back end is just business as usual that matters. The business of eyes is seeing, and any explanation for questions involving detection are going to be weaker (fine enough for the other end where you can stick as many trunks as you want (if suboptimal), but not for the business end of an eyeball... the gameplay explanations should always be sight-centric, or it shouldn't be an eyeball).

Why can't they use all available senses and only wake up if they *detect* something in front of them?

Because, if Beethro is invisible, and they're detecting him with smell and sound, why should they know when Beethro is exactly in front of them to wake them up? You can add vacuums and special drafts and leyline veins for seismic channelling... but that all gets cut with Occam's Razor because they're unneeded. The monster is a freaking eyeball... we know it's got sight, the details about other senses are added complexities that aren't in evidence or needed. It sees to front, it detects with sight... modern narrative structure and tropes make that all to clear that that's the correct way for a monster that's just an eyeball in a story or in gameplay in a game. Plus there's the invisible spiders, which also suggest invisibility as camouflage (in a weaker form there to the potion). Everything reasonable points to the simple fact that sight is correct here and that any other explanation using other senses is bull cookies in comparison. It's simpler to smooth over such a little wart from the OP (see below) than go with more elaborate explanations.

And I'll note that 'reflected images within 5 squares' gives us a mechanic that only works if the Mirror is 1 or 2 tiles in front of the Eye, and is thus very restrictive and potentially even *more* unintuitive as a gameplay mechanic. So it's not a solution I would like to aim for.

I said it was the most consistent behaviour. That doesn't mean that that it needs to be implemented as such or at all (the game's already filled with ugly exceptions that are suboptimal in various key ways). It makes the most sense with what's currently observed. Personally, I find it more unintuitive that an eyeball can't detect in this situation (I know that I wouldn't be walking that close in this situation because I'd expect the eye to wake up). Plus, if the eyeball is being extra careful about detecting that Beethro is directly in front after smelling/hearing him, then we need to ask how Beethro could walk behind the mirror (invisible or not) without waking the eye (because there's no difference between that and the situation with no mirror if the eye isn't seeing... it can't be because the mirror blocks smell/sound, any other monster, including an awake eye would smell/hear Beetro behind a mirror). See, with the smelling/hearing explanation, now I'm finding it unintuitive for Beethro to hide from eyeballs with obstacles at all. At least my explanation works better than that... and if it's too much for you, then we can tweak with Moo's bit where mirror-image invisible Beethro simply isn't clear enough for evil eyes to register. Mirror tech isn't that good yet in the Empire... good enough optics to reflect beam weapons, though... but then again, I've seen Beethro kill hundreds of things with his sword without wiping it off and still be able to reflect Aumtlich beams effectively. Those are some powerful eyebeams, I guess.

As is, Doom's come closest to an adequate alternate explanation. I maintain that the current mechanics is simple both in gameplay abstraction and explanation, but I don't see much wrong with Doom's either.

Wait... that's just a more complex version of mine with an unnecessary step involving smell and vibrations to key them up to see Beethro enter the eye's line of sight? My explanation is just "eyes see", no need for complicated additional senses that aren't in evidence.

Doom
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3226
Registered: 07-05-2004
IP: Logged

bwross wrote: The monster is a freaking eyeball... we know it's got sight, the details about other senses are added complexities that aren't in evidence or needed. [...] I said it was the most consistent behaviour

But it's not making things more consistent. It's creating an exception. There are other monsters that can see and smell you, even when it's not realistic (like waterskipper nests).

Really, I think Jacob summed it up the best.

Jacob wrote:
The only viable alternative here I can see is to say that the whole smelling thing is just a silly and inaccurate way of saying that "Monsters that are within 5x5 of an invisible Beethro act as they normally would do if Beethro weren't invisible." This is certainly consistent for the behaviour of every other monster (including brains for whom their behaviour is to direct monsters to Beethro). I think that this is probably how most players view the invisibility mechanic, and therefore why the described behaviour seems counterintuitive.

Smell is merely an official excuse for the box around Beethro so it feels like it makes some amount of sense. But the smell is not the point, it's actually all about having a consistent gameplay rule. Having to learn the quirks of how different monsters uses their senses differently might make things more realistic, but also overcomplicates things when in the end we just want good gameplay for our puzzle game with rules that are not entirely unplausible. I wasn't really trying to come up with the simplest explanation, but one that makes the simplest gameplay rule sound at least somewhat plausible in reality.

skell
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3734
Registered: 12-28-2004
IP: Logged

Gob, you are just overcomplicating everything. Invisibility potion also grants vampirism - when invisible Beethro is also a vampire and it's common knowledge that vampires do not reflect in mirrors. That's why the eye can't see them.

____________________________
My website | Facebook | Twitter

skell
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3734
Registered: 12-28-2004
IP: Logged

But jokes aside, I think the most intuitive solution is for the eyes to wake up only when the eye is in range, regardless of how far the mirror is. This synergies nicely with the smell range visual cue.

____________________________
My website | Facebook | Twitter

bwross
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 376
Registered: 04-17-2005
IP: Logged

Doom wrote:

bwross wrote: The monster is a freaking eyeball... we know it's got sight, the details about other senses are added complexities that aren't in evidence or needed. [...] I said it was the most consistent behaviour

But it's not making things more consistent. It's creating an exception. There are other monsters that can see and smell you, even when it's not realistic (like waterskipper nests).

It doesn't create an exception. The original smell reasoning created exceptions and warts, which the sight based explanation doesn't. So exceptions are reduced. All creatures are working the same, only with this explanation, evil eyes also make more sense (including old original behaviours).

And why would waterskipper nests have senses? You're creating another fantastic explanation where one isn't needed to have a plausible explanation that makes sense in reality. Waterskipper nests don't need to be different from an ant hill... having senses in a metaphorical sense, because the creatures inside are the ones that detect and respond.

Smell is merely an official excuse for the box around Beethro so it feels like it makes some amount of sense.

Plus, where in the gameplay is there any support for monsters smelling other than the invisibility excuse? There are no evil noses and I've given an explanation for invisibility that doesn't require monsters to smell at all. Smelling really isn't a presence in the gameplay... there are no draft maps, and even if there were, monsters can detect Beethro even when completely cut off with rock walls, suggesting that hearing and seismic senses would be more correct.

But the smell is not the point, it's actually all about having a consistent gameplay rule.

It is important to the heart and soul of the game, something which is far more important than most people think because when you do things that shift a game to a more metaphysical grey or beige you can't get that back and the game is diminished. The game simply becomes more hollow. Gameplay comes first, but if you're always quick to handwave with that canard, the soul goes grey and utilitarian. But if you go to far the other way and are quick to patch explanations with more technobabble and no consideration to keeping explanations very simple and vibrant, then the soul of the game goes beige... it's like the grey case, where any change can just be made and accepted by players, only with explanations that people don't feel anymore, because, truth is, you can make any change to a game and explain it somehow, but if you're clearly doing that, then players lose the sense that there are any walls on the game's reality so they lose the feeling they can infer things. It's an important balance, ignore it and your game ends up feeling more dry, abstract, and arbitrary. Gameplay might still carry it for playing through, but it won't be a game that can really grab hearts.

Having to learn the quirks of how different monsters uses their senses differently might make things more realistic, but also overcomplicates things when in the end we just want good gameplay for our puzzle game with rules that are not entirely unplausible. I wasn't really trying to come up with the simplest explanation, but one that makes the simplest gameplay rule sound at least somewhat plausible in reality.

All the more reason to embrace the sight based explanation of invisibility that doesn't require smell at all. Less senses are employed (so you don't have to worry about them leaking from explanation into gameplay, you can just forget smell exists), complexity is reduced, gameplay is explained, it's perfectly plausible (spiders, etc.) and agrees with everything except the more complicated explanation it replaces. It makes the simplest gameplay rule sound plausible in reality, and is itself simple. That beats something that makes it sound plausible, but requires a more elaborate explanation. A simple explanation that makes gameplay and rules simpler to infer is far superior.

=-= * * * =-=

skell wrote:
Gob, you are just overcomplicating everything. Invisibility potion also grants vampirism - when invisible Beethro is also a vampire and it's common knowledge that vampires do not reflect in mirrors. That's why the eye can't see them.

And now we have to worry about why everything else that comes with the vampire package isn't working.

But jokes aside, I think the most intuitive solution is for the eyes to wake up only when the eye is in range, regardless of how far the mirror is. This synergies nicely with the visual cue.

FTFY. (There's no need to mention "smell range" here... it works and is intuitive with the visual cue, the exact interpretation of invisibility isn't important. For the optical case, it might not be exact, but it can be said to be "good enough" while keeping it simple to play.)

---

[Last edited by bwross at 05-26-2014 02:03 PM]

Pinnacle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1129
Registered: 06-10-2004
IP: Logged

bwross wrote:
And now we have to worry about why everything else that comes with the vampire package isn't working.

What are you talking about? While invisible, Beethro gains lifesteal, you just don't notice it because he only has 1 HP. It works fine.

____________________________
Once (adv.): Enough.
Twice (adv.): Once too often.
~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

skell
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3734
Registered: 12-28-2004
IP: Logged

Bwross there is one really big problem with your writeup - the smell has been, from the very start, established as the explanation for monsters being able to detect player when invisible. I wouldn't mind retconning it if it only appears in KDD but, if I recall correctly, it has been mentioned thus far in other official holds although I can't remember which.

I do agree with other points, especially about keeping the world realistic.

Also, next time if you fix something in a quote please use [s]strike[/s] to indicate what you removed as it took me a long moment to realize what you did and hey, it was I who was quoted!

____________________________
My website | Facebook | Twitter

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5058
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

This game interaction appears to have become quite important all of a sudden. I can acknowledge that. I do want the game world to feel consistent and plausible, and I don't like bugs sitting around in the code. I can say that this was a design decision and is not a bug. We did decide during TCB beta that eyes cannot detect invisible entities reflected in a mirror.

Edit: for my reference, here's the archived TCB beta topic on this issue

Regardless, investigating this seems like a lower priority for the Caravel team at present. For better or worse, I don't think it would be fair for us to devote sufficient resources to ensure we both would want to and could change the current logic at this point in time. I think we should first get 5.0 out the door, and once the release has settled down, if we still think it's important to change the current logic at that point, and we can come to a consensus on what to do and ensure the change won't break much, then we can consider making a change.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 05-27-2014 07:20 PM]

bwross
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 376
Registered: 04-17-2005
IP: Logged

skell wrote:
Bwross there is one really big problem with your writeup - the smell has been, from the very start, established as the explanation for monsters being able to detect player when invisible. I wouldn't mind retconning it if it only appears in KDD but, if I recall correctly, it has been mentioned thus far in other official holds although I can't remember which.

Yeah, but it didn't sense then either because of the way it worked with eyes... so I've been ignoring it when it gets mentioned in other holds, because even if it is official, that doesn't make it less flawed (and Beethro's not the most reliable source, so it's easier to dismiss when he brings it up). Which is just as well, because shallow water invisibility made perfect sense to me, but really doesn't work with smell.

Also, next time if you fix something in a quote please use [s]strike[/s] to indicate what you removed as it took me a long moment to realize what you did and hey, it was I who was quoted!

I tried to over strike using ways that work elsewhere, but that didn't work here, and since it doesn't have a button on the post form, I just assumed that it wasn't handled here (like some other sites). That's why I tried to spell out what was removed in the comment. I suppose I could have done it with unicode combining, but that's a pain.