Why monsters won't attack the Arch-Vile?

Does anyone know the reasoning of why the monsters won't attack an Arch-Vile that attacked them? It's in the source code so this appears to be by design and not a bug.

probaly because if archvile gets stuck in a crowd when reviving many monsters they will not kill them and defeat the challenge of fighting him

Because killing the Archvile they're killing their life source, so they let him kill them and then revive them

I kind of feel like the archvile is a commander in the demon army. It probably has psychic powers, at least enough to stop any other demons from attacking it.

19 minutes ago, Chopkinsca said:

I kind of feel like the archvile is a commander in the demon army. It probably has psychic powers, at least enough to stop any other demons from attack it.

His method of attack definitly resembles some sort of telekinesis.

48 minutes ago, dmplayer5 said:

Does anyone know the reasoning of why the monsters won't attack an Arch-Vile that attacked them? It's in the source code so this appears to be by design and not a bug.

depend the monster, i think.
And the situation, mostly.

But i have seen cyberdemon and masterminds attacking the arch-vile, Revenants, Mancubis, Cacos and Hell Nobles, too.
So i don't know from where you get the assumption that monsters do not attack arch-viles.

For monsters infight each other, one monster need to accidentally attack other and produce that monster a pain state, if its doesn't produced, then the infighting not happens.

I don't know the exact damage output of an arch-vile flame, but i think regeular monsters up to pinkies didn't stood a chance against it or if it produces a proper pain state on those who survive it.
:/

Monsters know 2 important things:

1.There's no point in fighting as scary monster as Arch-Vile.

2.They will get resurrected anyway.

in the games code there is a special exception for archviles when it comes to infighting. no monster will fight an archvile no matter how tougher or weaker they are then the archvile.

38 minutes ago, Teo Slayer said:

Because killing the Archvile they're killing their life source, so they let him kill them and then revive them

yeah probably   

36 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

But i have seen cyberdemon and masterminds attacking the arch-vile, Revenants, Mancubis, Cacos and Hell Nobles, too.

So i don't know from where you get the assumption that monsters do not attack arch-viles.

Wait, what?  I don't think I've ever seen cybies and masterminds infight with archviles.  I always just assumed archies couldn't do damage to them.  Maybe bosses were already infighting against other monsters at the time.

The more you know, I guess.

Monsters can still attack Archviles
Turn god mode on, search for an Archvile, and when they are beginning their attack on you, stand next to a monster 
the splash damage will cause that monster to go after the Archvile

edit: nevermind, they don't

I kind of wish id had given a similar property to the Shambler in Quake, to match the claim in the manual that other monsters fear it.

There's a hard-coded exception.

Like The BMFG said, in vanilla archviles can't ever be targeted by other monsters no matter the circumstances, because of a hard coded exception in the source code that says so. By extent if the archvile is replaced with a new monster, it will inherit this 'exception'. In zdoom you can modify this via decorate to make other things retaliate to archvile damage, though if you have seen it in fair fights (in youtube videos) you'd realize why archviles are better flying under the radar.

1 hour ago, P41R47 said:

But i have seen cyberdemon and masterminds attacking the arch-vile, Revenants, Mancubis, Cacos and Hell Nobles, too.
So i don't know from where you get the assumption that monsters do not attack arch-viles.

For monsters infight each other, one monster need to accidentally attack other and produce that monster a pain state, if its doesn't produced, then the infighting not happens.

These 2 statements are both wrong.

10 minutes ago, galileo31dos01 said:

... though if you have seen it in fair fights (in youtube videos) you'd realize why archviles are better flying under the radar.

For context: 

"One of the worst of a bad lot. You can't think of enough rotten things to say about him. He's fast, hard to kill, casts spells, and resurrects dead monsters! At least these suckers are rare."

With a description like that I wouldn't mess with him!

1 hour ago, P41R47 said:

depend the monster, i think.
And the situation, mostly.

 

But i have seen cyberdemon and masterminds attacking the arch-vile, Revenants, Mancubis, Cacos and Hell Nobles, too.

None of these monsters will ever intentionally attack an Archvile. They can accidentally attack an Archie, but they will never retaliate on purpose after the initial attack. A good example of what I mean is map15 of scythe 2. Later in the map you come back to the first room wherein a cyberdemon and 2 archviles will teleport into the room, get the cyberdemon to hit one or both of the archviles then get away from his line of sight, he will not retaliate against either of the archviles, and since he doesn’t take splash damage this one sided battle can take a bit, with the Archviles only dealing base damage, and the cybie dealing none.

Technically?

It's because it's hard-coded into the game for monsters not to attack the Archvile.

Lore-wise?

I think it's because the Archvile ressurects demons, so why would they kill something that can bring them back to life?

3 hours ago, P41R47 said:

But i have seen cyberdemon and masterminds attacking the arch-vile, Revenants, Mancubis, Cacos and Hell Nobles, too.

Wrong, monsters can't intentionally kill the Arch-Vile, only in an accidental way.
 

Logically, in a way that isn't gameplay-related, I think the "Monsters won't attack the Arch-Vile" feature is unrealistic. But in a lore aspect I think they don't want to kill him because he can resurrect them, if they did they cannot reanimate him.

2 hours ago, silentzorah said:

Wait, what?  I don't think I've ever seen cybies and masterminds infight with archviles.  I always just assumed archies couldn't do damage to them.  Maybe bosses were already infighting against other monsters at the time.

 

The more you know, I guess.

1 hour ago, GarrettChan said:

These 2 statements are both wrong.

1 hour ago, Egg Boy said:

None of these monsters will ever intentionally attack an Archvile. They can accidentally attack an Archie, but they will never retaliate on purpose after the initial attack. A good example of what I mean is map15 of scythe 2. Later in the map you come back to the first room wherein a cyberdemon and 2 archviles will teleport into the room, get the cyberdemon to hit one or both of the archviles then get away from his line of sight, he will not retaliate against either of the archviles, and since he doesn’t take splash damage this one sided battle can take a bit, with the Archviles only dealing base damage, and the cybie dealing none.

In the three cases, Arch-vile was caught under accidental fire of other monster, and thus started attacking the one that attacked them

In no moment i said that they would intentionally attack the Arch-vile.
But you can lure them to infight with it, nothing more.
 

Every time I see an archvile and cyberdemon together I try to get the arch file damage by the splash damage and when the Archie is mad at the cyber demon I just stand between them and let the Archie get rocketed up

32 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

 

  

In the three cases, Arch-vile was caught under accidental fire of other monster, and thus started attacking the one that attacked them

In no moment i said that they would intentionally attack the Arch-vile.
But you can lure them to infight with it, nothing more.
 

in the OP they specifically refer to a monster not counter attacking an archvile that attacked them first.
 

Quote

Does anyone know the reasoning of why the monsters won't attack an Arch-Vile that attacked them? It's in the source code so this appears to be by design and not a bug.

37 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

In the three cases, Arch-vile was caught under accidental fire of other monster, and thus started attacking the one that attacked them

In no moment i said that they would intentionally attack the Arch-vile.
But you can lure them to infight with it, nothing more.

You wording is too good for me to understand in the original sentence, so I would appreciate if you read what you wrote again.

Also, the other statement is talking about you have to get them into pain state to infight, which is just straightup wrong. That one statement doesn't involve Arch-vile at all.

25 minutes ago, Egg Boy said:

in the OP they specifically refer to a monster not counter attacking an archvile that attacked them first.

Yes, thats what i get wrong.

21 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

You wording is too good for me to understand in the original sentence, so I would appreciate if you read what you wrote again.

 

Also, the other statement is talking about you have to get them into pain state to infight, which is just straightup wrong. That one statement doesn't involve Arch-vile at all.

About the pain state, i thought it was the case, i have seen nobles get caught under chaingunner fire and not reacting at all, and just when the fire triggered the noble pain sound, they turn back and start seeking for the other attacker.

Guys, we are all adults, and we may or not understand things the same way, thus leading to some mistakes or missunderstanding.

Don't transform a missunderstanding on a witch hunt.
One already corrected me, no need to jump more at once for something that could be talked without problem.

I assume my mistake, need to continue with this?

2 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

Yes, thats what i get wrong.
About the pain state, i thought it was the case, i have seen nobles get caught under chaingunner fire and not reacting at all, and just when the fire triggered the noble pain sound, they turn back and start seeking for the other attacker.

 

Guys, we are all adults, and we may or not understand things the same way, thus leading to some mistakes.

 

Don't transform a missunderstanding on a witch hunt just for a mistake.
One already corrected me, no need to jump more at once for something that could be talked without problem.

I assume my mistake, need something else?

Wasn't trying to make a witch hunt out of this. I apologize if it came off as harsh or anything. Anyhow, hopefully this is cleared off and the thread can get back on track.

5 hours ago, dmplayer5 said:

Why monsters won't attack the Arch-Vile?

Same reason you wouldn't attack your lover.

On top of everything else that’s been said, it makes archviles that much more terrifying that no monsters will target them and nothing you do will convince them otherwise. Plus like omalefico said it gives them a disproportionately greater longevity in a crowded environment when they’re not picking fights with other monsters…otherwise the splash damage would convince a packed room of hell knights and revenants to turn and make a joke of the archvile pretty quickly.

Arch-viles can be targeted by monsters. People who say the arch-vile has a "hardcoded exception" are spreading lies and misinformation!

Damn, there are so many urban legends about Doom recently... What's next, you're gonna tell us that the berserk lasts for the entire level?