00:48:05 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.30-a0-808-g6e0788376e (34) 00:54:07 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.30-a0-808-g6e0788376e 01:36:07 Fork (bcrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.23-a0-4884-gcf1f1e11f7 04:22:29 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-4884-gcf1f1e11f7 05:28:15 Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.30-a0-808-g6e07883 (34) 07:39:51 <06advil> this is a sort of basic question about that branch, but is there a way it could work to do something like fuzz location but always show an outline? 08:40:25 <05kate> i'd guess that's technically possible but i don't think that would work in terms of resolving the interface problems with invis? since then there could still be cases where eg, the player knows for sure where the monster actually is, but the interface doesn't show them in that location 09:55:14 <06advil> it would have to do something like update the position if the player learns something about it 09:57:10 <06advil> I guess the thing is, invisibility that shows you where the monster is seems an awful lot like something else, not invisibility. Which is maybe fine (and I guess there are other more action-y games that do show you invisible enemies if you look closely enough) 09:57:49 <10PleasingFungus> simply choose a location within radius 1 of the monster and put silhouettes in all empty tiles adjacent to that 09:58:12 <06advil> yes, I was also wondering about something like that, though it seems like it might end up visually annoying 09:58:12 <10PleasingFungus> quantum monster fuzz 09:58:19 <06advil> showing a 2d gaussian over monster loc 09:58:27 <10PleasingFungus> idk what it means to learn something about a monster’s loc btw 09:58:54 <10PleasingFungus> if you eg hit them, or they hit you, how can you be sure they didn’t move away afterwards! 09:59:00 <10PleasingFungus> *afterwards? 09:59:28 <06advil> what I had in mind is that you narrow in on the monster and don't lose info after you've found them 10:01:12 <06advil> even to the point of, if they hit you, you now can fully track them 10:01:46 <10PleasingFungus> hm 10:02:09 <10PleasingFungus> doesn’t that still nullify funseen horrors’ gimmick, then? 10:02:52 <06advil> it doesn't seem like unseen horrors are preservable at all on any variant of this idea? 10:02:55 <10PleasingFungus> i guess it sounds like a bunch of extra code complexity that wouldn’t add up to much 10:03:01 <06advil> but they could still sneak up on you 10:03:11 <10PleasingFungus> idk what you get from a very brief uncertainty about location 10:03:12 <10PleasingFungus> hm 10:03:26 <10PleasingFungus> most monsters only turn invisible when in los 10:03:50 <10PleasingFungus> so seems like their loc would always be known under this system 10:04:19 <10PleasingFungus> also, are you saying that you wouldn’t show silhouettes at all for invis monsters that you haven’t interacted with yet? 10:05:16 <06advil> yes, that would be one way to go 10:05:31 <06advil> which could be done independent of the fuzzing thing 10:14:35 <09hellmonk> The problem with position fuzzing is that you still have to lie in the targeters 10:15:41 <10PleasingFungus> what does it mean to lie? 10:19:10 <09hellmonk> It means you still require a prompt on every targeter that might fail because the invisible monster could be in a position where your spell wouldn't hit it, even if you "know" where it is 10:20:32 <09hellmonk> eg there has to be a confirm prompt on scorch if the only target is invisible and 3 tiles away 10:27:22 <06advil> what I had in mind, which may not really be possible at all without a lot of extra complexity, was that the fuzzing would track player experience so that at least for the case where the player knows (or should know) where the monster is, the monster loc would be accurate 10:30:43 <06advil> not showing the monster at all if it comes from out of los until a hit or other interaction, and then tracking its location thereafter, would be consistent with this idea 10:36:47 <10PleasingFungus> when would fuzzing apply? 10:40:55 <06advil> one version would be if a player hasn't interacted with the monster (or seen them visible) 10:41:12 <10PleasingFungus> i thought you wouldn’t show them at all then? 10:41:25 <06advil> I think there are a lot of options 🙂 10:41:44 <06advil> that lie between (almost) never show the monster's pos, and always show the monster's pos 10:42:19 <06advil> I was originally thinking of fuzzing and showing an outline for that case, not showing the monster at all is an alternative (and I'm not sure if fuzzing makes sense then) 10:44:08 <06advil> anyways, all of these are a lot more complicated for sure 10:44:20 <09hellmonk> Not showing a monster that hasn't been interacted with does seem viable, or at least I can't think of a reason why it's bad at the moment 10:44:30 <06advil> to maybe minimal gain, it's true that the gimmicks I'm thinking of are in the minority for invis users 10:44:47 <09hellmonk> this pretty much only matters for perma invis mons I think 10:44:51 <06advil> yeah 10:45:10 <09hellmonk> but it's good to save unseen horrors probably 10:45:31 <06advil> also wondering about the shadow gimmick, but the way I was describing this it wouldn't be covered 10:45:35 <06advil> maurice also? 10:45:54 <06advil> ofc maurice is kind of annoying 10:45:55 <09hellmonk> well you usually know where shadows are since they just walk at you 10:46:02 <06advil> yeah, fair 10:46:16 <09hellmonk> them getting bonus damage while invis doesn't change 10:46:30 <09hellmonk> Maurice does have blink away or something right 10:46:57 <09hellmonk> maybe I will rework Maurice 10:49:34 <09gammafunk> nothing wrong with just renaming them to seen horrors 10:49:44 <06advil> translucent horrors 10:50:03 <10PleasingFungus> you don’t fool me! i can see right through you 10:50:39 <09gammafunk> crawl could probably use more giant eye beam attacks, just sayin 10:50:57 <09gammafunk> eyes of dev(astation) aren't quite enough 10:51:38 <12ebering> a possibility for location fuzz that doesn't preserve everything but is its own kind of funny: randomize all invis monsters locations in player's sight when someone goes invis 10:51:57 <12ebering> or even sillier, randomize w/all invis monsters in sight on move 10:52:03 <12ebering> in a 1v1 it doesn't change things but 10:52:36 <09gammafunk> more dispersal?! 10:52:54 <09gammafunk> I guess this is fuzz and not true dispersal 10:55:18 <09hellmonk> Invis being a shell game sounds like a really funny concept for a different game 10:55:28 <09hellmonk> GamblerRL 10:55:50 <09hellmonk> with roulette demons and slot golems 10:56:26 <06advil> I guess we don't have any variant of the thing where a monster spawns a bunch of fake copies of itself and you can't tell which one is the real one? 10:56:40 <06advil> seems like something that is in this space 10:56:46 <09hellmonk> Rakshashas and mara 10:56:48 <06advil> oh duh 10:57:28 <06advil> those do damage though 10:59:55 <10PleasingFungus> does seem like going invis could maybe move you anywhere within radius 1, but then we’d have to fuzz display, which is a pain… seems like work so that we could do more work 13:12:58 <09gammafunk> Reading this other clua implementation (for monster.is_constricting_you()) made me realize I am in fact going to have to re-implement a c++ function to make my new clua function to check whether a monster can use stairs: cpp // yay the interface lua_pushboolean(ls, (find(mi->constricting_name.begin(), mi->constricting_name.end(), "constricting you") != 13:12:58 mi->constricting_name.end()) || (find(mi->constricting_name.begin(), mi->constricting_name.end(), "holding you") != mi->constricting_name.end())); 13:13:20 <09gammafunk> the troubles of only being able to work with monster_info 14:19:42 <05kate> hmm, is it intentional that animated zombies don't pick up their equipment any more? 14:20:46 <10PleasingFungus> no 14:26:35 <05kate> it looks like it maybe went away with new animate dead and necrotize, imo it's also fine for it to be gone 14:27:04 <05kate> but i was interested to just learn that zombies that re-equip items apparently don't get any resists from artefacts they wear 14:28:06 <05kate> (and monsters generally don't get +ac or +ev from artefacts) 14:28:21 <10PleasingFungus> are you sure? no resists from items are shown in monster info 14:28:35 <10PleasingFungus> or at least in monster descriptions 14:29:15 <10PleasingFungus> also zombies re equipping the weapons they held in life is cool, imo (though not a huge deal) 14:29:59 <05kate> fairly sure, they're excluded in monster::scan_artefacts() from monsters that don't have MONUSE_STARTING_EQUIPMENT or better 14:30:42 <05kate> with a comment of // TODO: do we really want to prevent randarts from working for zombies? 14:40:04 kate, I thought that was deliberate: preventing the situation where a zombie has an item you want 14:43:10 <05kate> quite possibly! i think it's fine either way, just didn't see it mentioned in either of the commit messages changing animate dead/animate skeleton