Talk:Lost Soul charging backwards

This is a bug? I thought they were supposed to do that. Ryan W 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bug that they continue until they hit something no matter how long it takes. At least, quite odd. Fredrik 18:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm-m, and cacos do it as well actually. Should the name of this article be changed? Or maybe flying monsters were just designed to be a bit insecure. Ryan W 21:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged into Monsters fleeing, since both are special cases of the same AI idiosyncrasy. Cacos and pain elementals crab away halfway (or all the way) to the back wall almost every time they take damage. Any monster who knocks into an obstruction, or a pack of monsters in front of it, trying to reach the player will eventually turn around and run backward or sideways for a while (this is how the teleportation trap in MAP24: The Chasm works).

CarlosHoyos's map would remain, of course. (I don't even want to think about the excruciating trial and error that must have been required.)

Opinions? Ryan W 22:17, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said anything for a week, so I tried merging this article's information into Monsters fleeing. I think it worked out well enough that we don't need this one anymore. If you disagree with either the idea of the merging or its execution, fine, but please explain. :>   Without harder evidence that the two phenomena have different causes, I really think this is the best we can do. Ryan W 00:05, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * The things are different. Monster "fleeing" occurs because when forced back by weapon fire, the lack of friction makes it difficult for flying monsters it to regain control. With the lost soul, when it's attacked and does NOT go into it's pain state (Which is rare), It repeats it's charging animation until it hits anything, therefore losing ALL control (They can't even change direction, unlike PE's and Caco's). IOW, I say keep it TheDarkArchon 20:09, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. They do sound different, now that I think about it.


 * I'll remove the VfD template, but that doesn't solve the basic problem, which is that the article doesn't contain any of the information you have written here. And it sounds as though someone familiar with the relevant frame tables (i.e. not me :>  should ideally be the one to complete it.   Ryan W 19:34, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)