Which Doom 2 monster do you think the game needed the most?

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 minute ago, 42PercentHealth said:

Wait... how common is it? I thought it was pretty rare

The thing is that these fireballs don't quite behave as their appearance would make you believe. When it comes to not colliding with walls, these things seemingly have the properties of a neutrino, whereas when it comes to colliding with the player, they're just as large as they look. That makes them hard to evaluate at times, and I've had many occasions in which it almost felt like one of these "blobs" curved around a corner.

[42PercentHealth]

1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

The thing is that these fireballs don't quite behave as their appearance would make you believe. When it comes to not colliding with walls, these things seemingly have the properties of a neutrino, whereas when it comes to colliding with the player, they're just as large as they look. That makes them hard to evaluate at times, and I've had many occasions in which it almost felt like one of these "blobs" curved around a corner.

Agreed -- the sprites are freakin' huge, especially compared to the actual "thing" footprint size.

 

One thing I recently learned that might mess with our heads is that all the "things" are square prisms aligned with the North/South/East/West axes in the "mind" of the game engine. So if you are facing a manc along a N/S or E/W axis, you and the fireball just have to miss each other's edges. However, when dodging along a NE, NW, SE, or SW direction, you have to miss each other's corners. This increases the required distance by a factor of sqrt(2), or approximately 1.414 -- almost 1.5 times as far.

[scifista42]

25 minutes ago, 42PercentHealth said:

Wait... how common is it? I thought it was pretty rare.

 

Also, out of curiosity, if the fireball clips into a wall, is there a chance of it getting blocked again on the way back out?

A projectile moves in discrete steps by a constant distance given by its speed every tic, and there's a check if its hitbox collides with a wall in every tic, and if it does, the projectile gets blocked. The speed of Mancubus fireball is 20 and the diameter of its hitbox is 12, so if it heads straight against a wall (at an angle orthogonal to the wall's angle), the probability of getting blocked is roughly 60%, and increases if the projectile is heading against the wall at a steeper angle.

 

The chance of getting blocked on the way into a wall is the same as the chance of getting blocked on the way out of a wall. The chance of clipping both into and out of a particular wall can depend on the wall's thickness - if the thickness is roughly equal to a multiple of the projectile's speed, it's likely that if the projectile successfully clips in (under an orthogonal angle), it will also successfully clip out, because its speed is constant.

Edited April 11, 2017 by scifista42

[ella guro]

i hate fighting Revenants, especially when they're in large groups, but i have to admit they are a really well-designed enemy. there's a lot of dimensions to them - they're a really multi-faceted enemy. they can get overused pretty easily though. i am personally a fan of the Arachnotrons also, because they're a good long range enemy that can be a danger but they're not too strong, nor as cheap as Chaingunners at long range. they are basically a weaker boss enemy in some ways though. really most of the other monsters that were new to Doom 2, while they add to the game, are variations on existing monsters. the Archvile is a notable exception but they only work well for me when they're used more sparingly and strategically - hence why i think either Revenants or Arachnotrons are the best addition.

Edited April 12, 2017 by ella guro

[Cruduxy Pegg]

Idk I don't like the mancubus nerfs (projectile, Chainsaw, probably a bit more) introduced in zdoom. Sure they are fixes but am sure id software noticed the fatso shots clipped certain walls and decided to keep it,I always assumed their projectiles don't fully splash and some part go on  (even if still same damage). Same with arachnotrons becoming even weaker when you stun them to oblivion with the chainsaw.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Pegg

[NightmareZer0]

I am going to go with the Arch-Vile (He is my favorite monster but that doesn't factor into this). He added something new and fresh to the game (even though most people just find it annoying). Being able to raise dead monsters was a pretty sweet idea to add. Also I like the tactic of breaking his line of sight not to get damaged. The only thing I found weird about the vile is that he does not resurect certain monsters. Which I guess is understandable because you don't want him raising Cyberdemons. As a kid I used to noclip into the wall and watch Viles in Map30 to see if he would raise other Viles. I remember being in the wall for almost an hour watching him walk past a dead Vile just waiting for him to resurrect him. 

[termrork]

I glad to see so many people say AV :). If he wasn't invented back then someone had to do it. AV is the reason why I would never map a pwad for doom1. Also AVJ.wad would not have been possible without him/it :).

[YukiHerz]

Wolf SS, so people can destroy him for dehacked purposes.

[fveitsi]

Archvile of course. ;)

[Woolie Wool]

On 3/31/2017 at 3:23 AM, Graf Zahl said:

From a purely technical standpoint, I'd agree on Arch-vile and Revenant. If used well, both are great additions.

 

The issue I have is, that far too many mods do NOT use those two enemies well.

The Revenant in particular hads been 'degraded' to a common medium-health enemy in so many modern mods, like a more resistant imp. That's clearly not its place in the game and has killed more than mod for me.

 

Yes, I too hate revenant spam. A few revenants are good; throw them in everywhere and I'm the one going AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I like Quake's vores for being more specialized than the revenant, discouraging people from tossing them around willy-nilly (also for being creepy as hell).

 

As far as the Doom II monster the game needed the most, I'd say the archvile because it is so unlike any of the other monsters.

 

On 4/15/2017 at 4:59 AM, termrork said:

I glad to see so many people say AV :). If he wasn't invented back then someone had to do it. AV is the reason why I would never map a pwad for doom1. Also AVJ.wad would not have been possible without him/it :).

Archviles in Doom 1 with no SSG would suck ass. Doom 1 has a problem with grindy, tedious shotgun fights against barons and cacos already; the game does not need even more monsters that take three weeks to kill.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Woolie Wool

[Vermil]

I debate the Pain Elemental and/or Arch Vile as they add a need to charge into a fray, rather than run around the edges while all the other monsters bunch up in a ball.

[Cruduxy Pegg]

Some mapsets still force you to use the normal shotgun vs armies of viles, pain elemental and arachs.. Gets really annoying rather quickly, If I want to play corner camping I'd go play those fps full of shitscannes not doom.

[scifista42]

6 hours ago, Woolie Wool said:

Archviles in Doom 1 with no SSG would suck ass. Doom 1 has a problem with grindy, tedious shotgun fights against barons and cacos already; the game does not need even more monsters that take three weeks to kill.

There is rocket launcher, plasma gun and the BFG, though. All it takes to make decent encounters with high-HP monsters is to provide these weapons and enough ammo for them.

[<inactive>Player Lin]

1 hour ago, scifista42 said:

There is rocket launcher, plasma gun and the BFG, though. All it takes to make decent encounters with high-HP monsters is to provide these weapons and enough ammo for them.

Official levels would be fine as we have other powerful weapons, but not on many of user WADs, many of them like make shotgun is the weapon the player can only use(or maybe with pistol/chain gun) or give little ammo of RL/PG/BFG or put them near the end of level. :\

Edited May 6, 2017 by Player Lin
I hate my English grammar, really...

[Deadwing]

Revenants. They are more versatile than Arch-villes, IMO.

[Nine Inch Heels]

I still can't say which monster Doom2 needed the most. They're all good in their own rights, especially when used properly. So, I'll just be thinking out loud here, and maybe when I'm done I can say something, or perhaps have a tendency at least...

 

So, the chaingunner is pretty important, imo. I couldn't imagine any decent hitscan senario that is meant to be painful without them. Use one of these from a medium distance, or make them hard to hit, and you can potentially make him count for several shotgunners.

 

The hellknight is something I couldn't imagine living without. I'd even go as far as arguing that when mappers use a Baron, they might be better off using two HKs in many, if not most cases.

 

The revenant is plain awesome. No matter how often players complain about them being overused. From a concept point of view, they are simply brilliant: A mid tier sniper with good melee damage and a unique behaviour. They can be used in so many good ways that I don't even know where to start. Revenants are a must have.

 

Painelementals are also really cool, if used properly. Using them simply on their own in larger quantities is what makes quite a few people hate them though, but don't blame the PE, blame the mapper for that. Many maps I really like wouldn't exist without them, so they have to stay as well.

 

Mancubi are really nice too, they made dodging in projectile based scenarios a lot more interesting, and that's what doom2 needed. Their importance, in my opinion, is similar to revenants, so they gotta stay.

 

Arachnotrons are pretty interesting too. They're basically projectile based chaingunners, and become a real threat when the player is unable to simply tap-dodge their streams of bullets. A must have enemy, eventhough many players and mappers seem to give them less credit than they deserve.

 

Archviles... You love them, you hate them, you love to hate them... In any case, doom2 wouldn't be what it is without them. They're probably the most important addition to the roster from a mechanical point of view, but without HKs, revs, and other flock they'd be only half as good as they are.

 

Yeah, there you have it... I just can't choose... All I can say is that I'd probably drop the chaingunners if I had to, but I don't even want to do that, so yeah... I just can't choose really. Sorry, they're all at least good.

[Xyzzу]

Huh, I honestly never thought of exactly how each monster contributed to the gameplay. I mean sure, they all haves their uses, but in what specific ways I couldn't imagine. All the answers in this thread are great and have shown me some ways every monster can be used effectively. After reading everyone's responses, I've came to the conclusion that there truly isn't one single monster the game can have and can easily do without the rest. I've been enlightened, thanks everyone!

[baja blast rd.]

Misc. thoughts on the HK, which is one of Doom 2's most underappreciated monsters. 

 

- In most maps, you could theoretically replace lots of HKs with either cacos, revenants, or clusters of imps, or whatever else -- this is true of most such setups that aren't very dependent on the HK's particular abilities or infighting role, like lots of HKs in close quarters, or a HK vs. rev infighting party. But I think that unless the player is expected to play with a Men in Black style memory wipe every few minutes, this would actually be pretty bad, because it hurts variety. SSG-ing a couple HKs is marginally less fun on balance than SSG-ing a trio of revs, but if the bulk of my 'interstitial'-type fighting is with revenants and imps, I want the occasional HK too just for the sake of variety. 

 

- 'Infighting simulators' can be very fun! I think these are undeservedly maligned. There's a huge difference between a 'circling around lots of monsters in a big arena' infighting simulator, and a 'having to dance around monsters in tight spaces when you can't realistically engage them all' infighting simulator, if you want to even call the latter an 'infighting simulator' because of how much active engagement on the player's part it can require. Infighting is a fun mechanic, and it's often one of the primary sources of danger, because infighting monsters target other things in ways that are hard to keep track of. E.g. cybers. Ribbiks has some fun encounters that leverage the infighting cyber's unpredictability as a threat; SD20x6 and SWTW come to mind. HKs, at 500 HP, are particularly well balanced as 'infighting grunts' with other mid-tiers. (In this paragraph, I honestly forgot this post was supposed to be about HKs specifically. :D But I think I read a post a couple weeks back about HKs weakening an encounter because of infighting.) 

 

- HKs are really useful as secondary threats. Encounter design and monster placement in Doom is rarely about generating maximal threat. (Otherwise every encounter would spam nothing but viles, cybers, chaingunners, or revs, or PEs, because the next stronger species can technically be replaced with a monster that is stronger and ups the threat level.) Most interesting encounters are centered around there being a variety (that word again) of threats, so that certain targets can be prioritized over another, and certain areas in the battlefield are safer than others (sometimes with tradeoffs -- e.g. the safest spots might be the least efficient from a DPS standpoint, and DPS might also be important because the battle is progressive, with additional monsters warping in). So, yeah, replacing HKs with another monster might put the 'area it controls' (to use Huy Pham's way of conceiving fights) under more pressure, but maybe that wouldn't actually make the fight more interesting.

 

Just a few thoughts that came to mind. 

 

My vote is for the archvile though. 

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by rdwpa

[Pirx]

On 29.3.2017 at 8:28 PM, DAZZER said:

I would go with the revenant alone for the auto target function... its a weak enemy but can also be very dangerous in groups !

Archvile, because of how much it can change combat.  A bunch of monsters with projectiles?  Circle them till they're dead. A vile or two with them? Can't just circle and have to take those out first.  Oh wait, now he's raising his walls of flesh too. All doom 2 monsters were great additions to the somewhat unbalanced roster of doom, but the archvile changes the most, imo.

 

As for the baron, he could have got a deadlier attack in doom 2 to get rid of that high hp / low threat bore. Like being turned into an afrit or berserker.  As he is, he is a clumsier knight in most situations.

 

 

[drygnfyre]

Probably the Hell knight. Barons were a little too strong to have them swarm the player, Hell knights were just right.

[ShoDemo]

Damn! I remembered the Arch-vile when I posted, but I forgot to add the Hell Knight (really?).

Anyways, the Hell Knight has a cool design in my opinion and a better colour scheme than the Baron (I prefer grey over pink, as it is darker and more suitable to the general atmosphere). He can be killed easily with the SSG and he is not a bulletsponge, so placing him in large groups isn't annoying. Other than that, his behavior can be tricky to guess at times (will he shoot one or two fireballs?) making him a really interesting addition for me. He is well balanced and can unite, in a way, the weaker demons (imps, demons, zombiemen, e.t.c.) with the stronger ones (AV, Mancubus, Revenant, Baron) when placed in the battlefield.

It is amazing how the weaker brother here is mostly the better alternative of the two.