> Any thoughts? Would people see the need for more layers than this (at > some level, you get diminishin returns, as objects will obscure other > objects). Hum, the proposal sounds nice. I have only one concern, it's that it prevents having monsters under items. This means that you couldn't put an ant under a table (which would be their logical position, unless they climb the table). I know the code doesn't support that right now, but it's been talked about - redoing with 5 layers as you suggest would make it harder to tweak later... So my turn to suggest, but it may be a bigger change :) New fields 'altitude' and 'height' and 'max size to be under'. Usually we'll have 'altitude' == 'max size' (case of arrows for instance). A table will be (arbitrary units) 'altitude' = 0, 'max size' = 1, 'height' = 1.2 An ant with 'height' = .1 will go under the table. A troll with height = 2 will go over, thus altitude becomes 1.2 (climb on table; would be fun to have max weight resist table => table crumbles => monster gets hit :pp). That'll let us also have fun with walls - altitude = 0, max size under = 0, height = 3. A player with max_climb (another new field?) = .5 & height = 2 couldn't reach the top of the wall & thus couldn't go on the other side. Using current 3 layer approach, we'll be able to know what items to display - the three ones with higher altitude + height Not sure that'll solve all issues, but well. Just my 2 cents of € :) Nicolas _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel