"Arch-Viles can never be the target of another monster"
This is not explained in the article - Can someone elaborate on why this can't happen? I understand that arch-viles can't accidentally attack anything except their real target. BUT, other enemies can accidentally attack the arch-vile, so if in retaliation the arch-vile targets, say, an imp, then the imp might target the arch-vile after being attacked by it. Furthermore I have a very vague memory of witnessing this (but no immediate evidence to back this up).
Am I wrong about this? Zack 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, the imp would not target the arch-vile. It's in the code (see for example here, and the Arch-Vile article). Or try playing 12.WAD from Maximum Doom with IDDT, and watch the arch-vile kill the cyberdemon or the spiderdemon.
Ranged attack useEdit
Is there source code to support this? Because that whole section runs entirely counter to my experience. Ryback 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
"Note that this is only a possibility, and often the monster will choose to ignore the hits it takes and keep its current target even if its threshold is at zero." What is the support for this statement? In the source code, when a monster is damaged, the threshold is checked and if the check succeeds, the monster always switches to target the source of the damage. 188.8.131.52 08:33, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
- According to Quasar, you are correct. It's fixed now. -- Janizdreg 05:16, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Actually I first thought about this a long time ago, but had lost the link somehow then, just to stumble upon it again recently.
This page looks pretty encyclopedic, especially the part about flying monsters. Frankly, for me it was a revelation, and while I cannot say that it is a little-known topicin general, I think this really should be here on the wiki. Clearly, flying movement in Doom is quite distinct and restrained in comparison with subsequent games, and for example, knowing its idiosyncrasies gives certain tactical advantages.
Section about movement can be expanded here, but I think it will be better to have a separate article. --Unmaker 16:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Did it myself. Seems that now it tends to go on various bugs more than it should, but what the hell. --Unmaker 17:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)