Mark Wedel wrote: > 1) When the wall is yet to be damaged, it uses the same image (name & number) > of an undamaged normal wall, so is completely indistinguishable from the normal > walls. For this to properly work, other clues about the existance of such weak > walls is needed (For example, magic mouths which say 'you feel a draft' or 'Some > of the walls around here appear pretty weak'. Also, clues on npc's or scrolls > would work. > > 2) If the walls are supposed to be noticable from only visible inspection, then > this should be something more obvious than just a couple pixels being out of > place - for example, there should be cracks in the wall or other more apparant > damage that the wall could be destroyed than needing to pay really close > attention to walls and making sure there is not any changes. Otherwise, you > will probably get a greater proliferation of clients that use their own images > for weak walls simply so the player can notice them. > > Thoughts/preferances? I recommend using version 2). The weak walls should be slightly more noticeable. If a mapmaker feels like creating an indistinguishable weak wall he can still do it by using the standart wall pic instead of the default weak wall pic. (Many maps already use "illusionary walls" that look exactly like normal walls but are passable.) In general I dislike maps that consist of "searching for the weak wall"-puzzles. I believe that we´d do the players a great favour by modifying the default weak wall pics. Andreas V.