Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

Line of sight in pve

Bob
Edam
The other very frustrating "line of sight" issue is a melee character (player or otherwise) running past may only be between a ranged character and the targeted mob for a tiny fraction of a second but it seems to block line of sight for the ranged character for a very long period.

A lot of that has to do with the large collider we've got on most mobs/characters to make them easy to click on. Eventually we can make more adjustments to the system to tighten that up, but for now it's best to think of LoS not so much as "I couldn't possibly shoot around X to hit my desired target" as "I don't have a really clear shot around X to hit my desired target."
Bob
Maxen
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
I find the same problem that others have found with melee AoE. Many times Whirlwind will not trigger until I can get a lock on something outside the actual cluster. For a 2+ year character, it only adds a lil difficulty.

Are these kinds of issues happening with all kinds of mobs, or do they mostly happen with specific kinds of mobs (humanoids or ogres or wolves or goblins, etc)?

Most of the gushers I’ve done have involved bandit attacks. I’ve definitely experienced the issue BL describes with those.

I've tried some experiments with very large numbers of bandits and there definitely are some issues that happen when one of the bandits gets super-close. I've filed a couple bug reports to reduce the likelihood of mobs getting that close and to better deal with LoS if they get that close anyway, but I'm not sure how tricky those will be to fix. Meanwhile, I tried some experiments with increasing the AI radius for most mobs a bit, and that seems to help a great deal. We've always tried to keep those as small as possible to reduce pathing problems, and I'd even reduced some to help with in the last upgrade, but I could safely raise some of them up a bit and the overall result looks promising. If that continues to look good during testing, we can include it in the next update.
Bob
Mistwalker
Can we get the little blue "invulnerable" tags back please?

With LoS, I am not sure if the reason I can't get my attack off is due to LoS (so I am moving around trying to get it to work), or if the issue is that the mob is in invulnerable mode as it runs across the area to get to it's "start" point. If I see the invulnerable tag then I will simply switch out to another target and not waste my time on that invulnerable target.

Turns out one of our fixes to make sure attacks weren't wasted on invulnerable enemies bypassed the bit of code that lets you know you tried to attack an invulnerable character. We could probably rework some things to get it back in, but we should probably spend that time doing something different that gives you a better idea upfront why a particular feat is disabled now that we've got so many possibilities (lack of stamina, out of range, no LoS, invulnerable target) blocking attacks. I'll file a feature request to look into that.
Bob
Mistwalker
How hard would it be for the client and the server to match up their answers, so that either both can shoot or neither can shoot?

In theory, you could just have the client ask the server for LoS determinations, but that's a lot of extra work for the servers and would mean the client always lags a bit behind the server. Our compromise is to think of what the client is saying as more a kind of advice, with the server actually determining the truth. If you trigger an attack while your client says you lack LoS, then the server will do the attack right away if it disagrees. Likewise, if you trigger an attack while your client says LoS is fine, but the server disagrees, then the server will queue the attack up until it thinks LoS is established. It will be a little confusing, because your client will go ahead and do the attack animation right away, but the damage won't actually happen until the server says it should. That's a fairly common trick in server-based games to keep the client feeling responsive. There's some polish that can be done eventually to make that feel better, but there's really no way to avoid the issue entirely without the client feeling very non-responsive.

So, we still need the client and server to make their own determinations, but making them as likely to agree as possible is the goal. As we track down things that the client and server treat differently enough to cause LoS disagreements, we make adjustments to get them to agree. Once we track everything down, then the only disagreements will be short-lived, hopefully passing so quickly they're hardly noticeable.
Bob
Mistwalker
Would it be possible to have more than one point on a target be verified, say the head, the torso and the "feet" (or the hind quarters of a large long target like a wolf) of a target, and if one of them works, then the shot goes off? Have the same on the PC avatars.

It is a little frustrating when say the wolf is right up against you, and you have to move or jump because the LoS has a hickup. Or when a flag in a camp, that barely hides anything of the target, blocks line of sight.

It's possible to do more complicated LoS checks, though there's a point at which it could start to slow things down. That's a lot of the reason we chose the simplest possible check to start with, then we can add to it over time if it doesn't slow things down too much.

Another reason we chose the simpler method is that we wanted to say that the check means that both target and attacker can hit each other. If you check from one point on the attacker to multiple points on the target, then you'll have lots of cases where only one or the other can make an attack. For example, if the only line from A to B goes from center to foot, then there may not be a line from the center of B to anywhere on A. We could check all three points on both A and B, but then you'd have cases where we're saying line of sight is established because both of their feet can "see" each other. Alternatively, we give up on the reciprocal aspect, but then you'd have lots of frustrating cases where someone can attack you but you can't attack them back. There are certainly a lot of games that allow that, but it's more typical in games that have a lot of aiming control.

The flags and such are more an issue of collider size. If the collider is for clicking, then there's some trickier stuff we need to do to exempt those. If the collider is for blocking movement, we may be able to make the collider a little smaller. I'll file a bug to take a quick look at them when I have a chance.
Iram Thelbane
@Bob: I have made a ticket where a mob does me some damaged and where i have no LoS from my side, jumping let me have the LoS. Mobs were in upper part of the land than i
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
Bob
Line of Sight always checks in both directions, so a mob won't shoot you unless it thinks you can also shoot it.

Are you sure this is working like you think it does? Last night around Thornkeep, my character was peppered several times by the necromancers, and when I tried to return the favor with a wand attack, I was getting the message I didn't have LoS. I had to run up to almost melee range before I could attack them, yet they were hitting me without problem the entire time. In each instance, the only thing in between us was a node (scavenger or forest).

Sounds like nodes may be one of those cases where the client and server disagree. I'll file a bug report to look into those.
Bob
Tiddlepod
As in the game there are feats such as precise shot.
Why then, so as far as creatures blocking LOS cant they just give a minus on the attack value rather than loose the attack entirely. Just leave the blocking of LOS to inanimate objects.

This would be technically possible, but pretty tricky to implement.

Tiddlepod
Also why does a small campfire block an arrow or spell.

The campfires are an example of objects that were given very large colliders to block movement so players wouldn't walk through them or jump on top of them. With Line of Sight in now, we'll look into fixing those as we find them to get a better balance.

Tiddlepod
It is frustrating loosing multiple attacks from area effect spells that centre on an opponent.

We may eventually want to make LoS exceptions for certain attacks where it makes sense, though it would probably be tricky to implement. For now, it's best to think of the attack as still having to go from point A to point B, and if it has a good chance of hitting something along the way, then you need to be explicitly targeting that thing.
Bob
Iram Thelbane
@Bob: I have made a ticket where a mob does me some damaged and where i have no LoS from my side, jumping let me have the LoS. Mobs were in upper part of the land than i

Saw that, I'll get a bug filed on it.
Bob
Bringslite-Dominion Soldier
To counter frustration, add depth to combat, and give players options with the apparently new situation of mobs running right up on characters (I mean INSIDE their hit boxes where no one can do anything) why not simply make lighter-shorter weapons effective in that pesky "zone" and keep big-or-large ranged weapons useless as they are.

Add a little nod to close quarters fighting….

We might be able to do something like that, or might even have to if we can't solve some of these issues in other straight-forward ways. Depending on the distances allowed, one downside could be that there'd be some odd cases where people are on opposite sides of a very thin wall but can still hit each other, which Hobson alluded to by suggesting thicker walls. That's admittedly pretty rare though and might be acceptable.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post