03:11:58 <06mumra> I had a new idea for the moondial evoker I've been working on, as AoE blinding on its own didn't seem terribly interesting for a misc item. So now I'm having it create a few random tiles of "moonlight" temporarily around LOS (the placeholder tile is a modified Runelight). You can then walk over these tiles to receive some healing (blinding you for longer, and removing the tile in the process). Now obviously healing is a heavily 03:11:58 restricted effect so firstly does that sound even reasonable on an XP evoker? And secondly the mechanic is a little similar to one alchemy spell idea DracoOmega was discussing, I assume that iteration never worked out, but I am wondering if you were saving that kind of mechanic for anything else? There are details to fiddle with, like should you receive the health instantly on stepping on the tile, or do you have to spend a couple of turns there 03:11:59 getting regen. If healing is just not viable then maybe the pickups could work more like that alchemy idea; blasting monsters with moonlight as you collect them. Then another idea was to have monsters be attracted to the moonlight and they get some damage/debuff when they step on them so they're kind of distraction traps. Overall I think some variation of the above makes the evoker a lot more interesting and gives the player more things to do for a few 03:11:59 turns. 03:31:56 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-5199-gb287095a7e 05:03:52 <12ge0ff> Some forks already have a healing evoker, so it might be worth experimenting with such item in vanilla too. Esp. if it's more mechanically interesting than just "evoke to heal" 05:07:16 Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.32-a0-995-gb4a5920 (34) 06:42:34 acky6 (L23 CoHu) Crash caused by signal #6: Aborted (Vaults:1) 06:43:34 acky6 (L23 CoHu) Crash caused by signal #6: Aborted (Vaults:1) 06:47:31 <06mumra> Interesting, didn't know that. Yeah I feel it has to work in a really distinct way 07:28:33 <05icoson> I think it's very hard to avoid tedious + optimal stuff with a reusable healing item in dcss 07:31:55 <05icoson> for that one a very superficial impression is that it sounds safe-ish but annoying to use with a clear los, with minor incentive to do so (I guess this depends on how blinding goes away) 10:48:05 markshark (L17 MiFi) ASSERT((duration[DUR_AFRAID] > 0) == !fearmongers.empty()) in 'fearmonger.cc' at line 56 failed. (Shoals:3) 12:55:58 <12ge0ff> reposting from other discord: Jiyva protects jellies from your melee attacks, but you can still kill them by attacking via the v command 12:58:13 <04dracoomega> I'd ask "Why doesn't that use the same codepath?" buuuuut..... 12:58:54 <04dracoomega> As I continue my work to refactor/streamline aura effects, did anyone realize that torpor snails don't affect stationary enemies? (Did anyone know that Metabolic Englaciation also doesn't affect stationary enemies?) 12:59:08 <04dracoomega> (And does anyone think there's a sensible reason to preserve this behavior? >.>) 12:59:30 <04dracoomega> I mean, you can englaciate animated armour, so it's not clear why it doesn't work on an oklob 13:13:24 <06dolorous_84348> Fedhas' allies likely have the same problem, then. 13:15:27 <12ge0ff> > You destroy the thorn hunter! > That felt strangely unrewarding. > _Fedhas accepts your kill. ^--- Fedhas even gives you piety for that! 13:15:53 <06dolorous_84348> Yikes. 13:16:13 <12ge0ff> and it's beneficial to kill all neutral jellies to preserve loot 13:17:13 <06dolorous_84348> There's a bug report on something similar with Fedhas, but I couldn't reproduce it, and it doesn't involve reaching (unless the monster had it, but the report is vague). 13:20:40 <06dolorous_84348> I figured in that case, something else could have died at the right instant to cause the message, but there isn't much detail in the report. 13:21:45 <06dolorous_84348> Unless cleaving is also broken the way reaching is? 13:22:48 <04dracoomega> I suspect that would come up a lot more often, if it was 13:23:05 <04dracoomega> People cleave near allies all the time 13:23:21 <04dracoomega> Er, well, neutral things 13:23:26 <04dracoomega> (I could be wrong, though) 13:28:48 <06dolorous_84348> I just tried it with a broad axe to make sure, and the ballistomycete was properly protected from harm, so I think that code's okay. 13:29:36 <06pleasingfungus> draco: until recently, you couldn't slow stationary enemies at all 13:29:48 <06pleasingfungus> there was a consistent, but baffling, logic 13:55:33 <04dracoomega> Huh. When did that change, I wonder? 14:11:09 <04dracoomega> I guess chaos slowing still doesn't affect stationary things, either. 14:11:14 <04dracoomega> I genuinely did not know any of this 14:12:36 <04dracoomega> Slow from the spell also seems not to affect them, but the tracer lies and says that it can 14:13:10 <04dracoomega> Resist messages are printed as normal, but if it fails the resist check, it just prints 'Nothing appears to happen' 14:22:27 <04dracoomega> Which, at the very least, is a bug. Are there any other cases, I wonder? 14:23:08 <04dracoomega> Curare doesn't check stationary, but I am not sure there are any stationary monsters with no rPois? 14:23:47 03dolorous02 07* 0.32-a0-996-gb3226c233f: Make god protection work with cleaving/reaching. 10(38 minutes ago, 2 files, 6+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/b3226c233f13 14:23:48 <04dracoomega> I guess Ru retribution and Apocalypse can apply it 14:24:31 <06dolorous_84348> I still can't reproduce attacking god-protected monsters via cleaving, but the dont_harm() function it uses now accounts for that, just in case it comes up. 14:25:33 <06dolorous_84348> I did at least some perfunctory testing with Rift, with its reach-cleave combo. 14:26:08 <04dracoomega> Er, do you mean lochaber axe? 14:26:29 <04dracoomega> Rift just reaches extra far 14:28:25 <06dolorous_84348> Yes, sorry. 14:29:10 <06dolorous_84348> I've tested with both of them now, and they both seem to work. 14:32:34 <02Monkooky> you can also get cleave status from Xom, which at one point behaved very oddly with rift 14:32:48 <04dracoomega> I feel a little awkward being like "I didn't know this was a thing, and it doesn't especially make sense to me, so let's remove it" when it's evidently been this way for basically forever, without getting at least a second agreement on the subject, so what's your opinion? 14:32:54 <04dracoomega> Or anyone else's, for that matter ^^; 14:34:49 <06dolorous_84348> Good to know. I'll have to look into that, but unless it uses a different code path from all other cleaving, it should be okay? 14:35:14 <02Monkooky> believe it's the same codepath 14:35:33 <04dracoomega> (I've toyed around with some evoker designs that give that status to you temporarily, incidentally) 14:35:37 <02Monkooky> oh, other thing to check is oni quaffs which I believe do not use the same codepath 14:35:49 <04dracoomega> It already checks safe attacks 14:36:15 <04dracoomega> Not to say there couldn't be something wrong, but it very specifically looks for whether an attack could prompt 14:36:21 <04dracoomega> And will ignore those targets 14:37:14 <06dolorous_84348> Just tested it with Fedhas, and it doesn't swing at the surrounding plants at all, as it shouldn't. 14:38:20 <06dolorous_84348> Slowing stationary monsters makes sense if it means slowing their attacks or other non-movement actions. If it means slowing their movement, however, it doesn't make sense. At least not to me. 14:38:50 <04dracoomega> I mean, it does both things at the same time, so yes. Giving -swiftness to a stationary monster wouldn't make sense 14:39:51 <04dracoomega> But I think the fact that it can't affect their movement speed doesn't matter when it still affects their action speed and they do act? 14:40:51 <06dolorous_84348> Yes. If it has an effect on them regardless of their ability to move from a given spot, then it's useful. 14:41:15 <06dolorous_84348> And the Xom cleaving code does use the same codepath; the cleaving status sends it through there. 14:51:49 <04dracoomega> I wonder at my refactoring here being like more than double the number of lines of code that it's replacing. But it should be simple to add new effects like this now! (Assuming I haven't broken anything subtle, of course) 14:52:13 <06dolorous_84348> That makes it a good refactoring: greater flexibility 🙂 14:54:43 and hopefully more comprehensible 14:56:14 <06dolorous_84348> Indeed. 15:10:17 <06pleasingfungus> draco: i think i might've already started removing the 'stationary monsters can't be slowed/hasted' in some places (beam.cc?), so i'm all in favor of finishing it 🙂 15:10:32 <04dracoomega> Okay, fair enough! 15:11:58 <06pleasingfungus> but thank you for asking! 15:12:50 <06pleasingfungus> > "I didn't know this was a thing, and it doesn't especially make sense to me, so let's remove it..." my feeling on this sort of situation (very common in crawl!) is: spend a minute to double-check if there's a secret good reason, and if not, activate the kill rays 15:13:01 <06pleasingfungus> (asking another dev is a great way to double-check, of course) 15:13:45 <04dracoomega> Yeah, exactly. Sometimes there is a good reason. 15:15:08 <06pleasingfungus> %git 4e368e6683f820772e654b4e803e7c0a52a58f0e 15:15:09 <04Cerebot> PleasingFungus * 0.30-a0-441-g4e368e6683: Allow applying Haste and Might to statues (1 year, 5 months ago, 1 file, 0+ 2-) https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/4e368e6683f8 15:15:11 <06pleasingfungus> this was my last poke at it 15:15:15 <06pleasingfungus> huh, not that recently after all 🙂 15:16:06 <04dracoomega> Probably Might should have a check for only affecting monsters with attacks. Pretty sure chaos Might specifically does. (I wonder if Might Other itself also checks?) 15:16:38 <06pleasingfungus> these stationary checks are very ancient indeed 15:16:40 <06pleasingfungus> eg 15:16:41 <06pleasingfungus> %git 2052c5d6371 15:16:42 <04Cerebot> greensnark * 0.2-a0-245-g2052c5d637: [1627743] Indicate when a monster's paralysed (mons_is_paralysed may need fixing per Haran's comment). (17 years ago, 2 files, 28+ 11-) https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/2052c5d6371a 15:16:58 <06pleasingfungus> ^ looks like this was probably backstopped by some other logic in mon-ench, maybe..? 15:17:06 <04dracoomega> No, Might Other doesn't seem to check 15:17:19 <06pleasingfungus> tbf, almost all monsters have attacks 15:17:29 <04dracoomega> Yeah 15:17:34 <06pleasingfungus> anyway, this logic is old enough that it seems difficult to impossible to find a reason 15:18:28 <04dracoomega> Huh. Testing it now, a convoker will try to cast it on an ice statue, but it still does nothing and has no visible effect (or even message) 15:18:53 <04dracoomega> Something must be vetoing it somewhere along the line 15:19:47 <04dracoomega> Oh 15:19:49 <04dracoomega> %git baa02615405688e3c99bfaebc7480d1719c4c846 15:19:50 <04Cerebot> PleasingFungus * 0.30-a0-442-gbaa0261540: Don't allow Mighting monsters with no attacks (1 year, 4 months ago, 1 file, 1+ 0-) https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/baa026154056 15:21:01 <06pleasingfungus> good work (?) me? 15:21:48 <04dracoomega> Ah, I think I see the part of the logic that's missing 15:21:55 <04dracoomega> So that tracers still think it could work 15:27:13 <02Monkooky> are tentacles/segments all immune to slows outside of being stationary? 15:28:18 <04dracoomega> Probably not? 15:30:33 <04dracoomega> (But there's no reason it shouldn't work properly on solo tentacles and would still effect attacks on child tentacles. I'll see if it produces meaningless messages/icons if you use englaciation on segments, though) 15:32:39 <04dracoomega> Okay, ME does hit segments here, though amusingly, because of how tentacles work internally it appears to vanish before the player can even see it (because tentacle segments are destroyed and created from scratch multiple times every turn) 15:36:37 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.32-a0-996-gb3226c233f (34) 15:41:57 <04dracoomega> I wonder if tentacle segments should count as 'ephemeral' (ie: the probably-renamed rearrangement of the current 'conjured')? ...although we're really not consistent with which effects ignore those things either (though a bunch do) 15:42:37 <04dracoomega> Tentacles are generally all will-immune, so this applies to maybe just ME and chaos effects (probably no chaos debuff should hit a tentacle segment anyway? Probably they currently can, though?) 15:43:27 <04dracoomega> 'The eldritch tentacle segment seems to speed up', heh 15:44:39 <04dracoomega> Incidentally, on the topic of that aura refactoring making things easier to work with, I implemented Index's suggestion of 'the player counts as Marked while in LoS of an ophan' as a test, and it works without apparent issue after like... about a literal 2 minutes of effort 15:44:49 <04dracoomega> Or less? 16:00:51 <02Monkooky> I think for Kraken specifically you get weirdness with slowing the tentacles kinda not really working 19:55:41 <06mumra> Really it should be the kraken itself that is hasted/slowed and all tentacles should then internally apply the same status (and if you e.g. hit a tentacle with chaos, it should forward any effects onto the head) 20:02:41 <04dracoomega> You may not be aware of how any part of the current system works, but essentially child tentacle speed affects their attack speed and not their movement speed, which is controlled directly by the head at all times (in a complicated fashion). The head being hasted can make tentacles move faster (not that they currently need much help in that regard), but not their attack speed. 20:05:00 <04dracoomega> Monkooky and later myself had taken a swing at improving / cleaning up various aspects of this, but it's... very tricky stuff. I'd been days into some of the most fiddly annoying debugging I've ever done in Crawl before I got sick the other month, and then when I came back I wanted to work on easier things for a while >.>; 20:05:44 <04dracoomega> There's some fundamental issues that I think make improving some of this very difficult without a bigger overhaul than I am willing to undertake 20:06:07 <04dracoomega> (But I did still have a couple ideas to go back and try for kraken at some point) 20:06:15 <04dracoomega> Smaller in scale than fixing all this >.>; 20:13:42 <06mumra> I mean I've seen plenty enough how things that feel like they should be really trivial end up vastly more complicated, so when a thing even sounds complicated to begin with like multi tile entities ... (and I notice special cases for tentacle segments all over the place when working on other things) 20:18:32 <04dracoomega> Solo tentacles generally work okay (as complicated as the backend is...). It's the ones connected to a mobile head that are the most troubled. 20:32:22 <06mumra> I was trying to make a monster that could move in wall tiles but is fully targetable/attackable while doing so (as long as the wall is adjacent to floor obvious). The idea is it's a swarm, so it's actually swarming "over" the walls. Current version is a sentient moss for late D or V (maybe to replace slime monsters in one or other branch). So they spawn in a large band, are individually fairly unthreatening but can completely surround you 20:32:22 even in a corridor 20:36:07 <06mumra> It turns out this is really problematic (tho I didn't expect it to be straightforward), even with fiddling with LOS and beam code something is still preventing targeting them in walls, as well as there being multiple places with checks to stop monsters ever being inside walls (after disabling an assert, and some startup code that specifically pushes onto floor tiles, there is still somewhere else that is also moving them onto the floor 20:36:08 when the game loads...) 20:49:56 <04dracoomega> I actually have that sort of thing implemented locally 20:54:49 <04dracoomega> It was a monster that could only move in walls, intended as a player summon only. It had some problems, though - they can't exist in level border for other technical reasons, but it's not obvious to the player in some situations (Vaults, especially) that a wall is a level border, so being unable to summon them in some places, or move existing ones along existing walls was a bit problematic. Worse: because the wall itself is 20:54:49 visible from the other side of the wall, they would often get attacked or shot at by things you couldn't see. You'd get messages about this happening, but it was weird and awkward. I shelved it because there wasn't an obvious reasonable solution to that problem at the time (this was back in 0.31). I had been planning to pull some of that code out again to try a hostile monster instead, though. (With it being able to move in both walls and floor 20:54:50 instead of only walls). Because this mostly solves the original issues with this (level border no longer is weirdly problematic, and they're not going to get attacked by things on the other side of the walls in most cases, so those will be their allies) 20:55:33 <04dracoomega> Index had been thinking of these being rockfish, which is a cute pun, imo 20:56:14 <04dracoomega> Aside from the problems noted above, being able to injure and properly target them while they were in a wall was working fine 20:56:26 <09hellmonk> Rock worms coming back in a big way 20:56:58 <04dracoomega> I don't think rock worms would have been so unpopular in their day if you could actually hurt them in a wall 20:57:05 <04dracoomega> (I liked them anyway >.>) 21:00:35 <06mumra> Yeah i actually checked the rock worm removal commit and that was the cited reason 21:04:30 <06mumra> So yeah these sound rather similar (moving in floors and walls). I probably just missed something minor with the wall targetting, just felt like it should have been already working from what I did 🙂 21:10:00 <04dracoomega> I recall it being a bit of a pain (though at least some of that was making pathfinding work acceptably when they were forced to only move through walls >.>) 21:19:11 <06mumra> Yeah I have the pathfinding quite reasonable with both walls and floors. The tricky part seems to just be allowing LOS_NO_TRANS to think that the wall isn't there (but still blocking any rays the tile after so they're not just puncturing a hole through walls) 21:20:20 <06mumra> I was also thinking it could an early-mid D monster like a swarm of ants 21:41:33 <04dracoomega> I think the rockfish intent was mid/lateish-D 21:46:19 <06regret-⸸nde※> (The original intent was early D so I could have an earth non-demon non-dragon available for an early elemental-war & restrained-to-portal allies portal, but I'm probably not making that any time soon, so it's fine to continue to try to add to whatever fanciness can sufficiently invigorate post-temple / post-lair D.) 22:35:34 Unstable branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.32-a0-996-gb3226c233f (34) 22:58:08 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.32-a0-996-gb3226c233f 23:13:16 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.32-a0-996-gb3226c233f (34) 23:55:55 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.32-a0-996-gb3226c233f