00:33:15 Stable (0.32) branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.32.1-1-g848d7226f3 05:03:11 Stable (0.32) branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.32.1-1-g848d722 05:53:22 FR: Talisman form that is geared towards ranged combat 06:03:31 Maybe a birb 07:49:28 FR: toggle on/off rampage from equipment for when you want to use it as a stat stick but not not rampage by accident 08:13:47 <03implojin> rampage initially had a toggle but, after some discussion, the toggle was removed. it's a more interesting item without it! 08:16:11 <03implojin> (note that if you want to move one tile towards a monster instead of two with rampage equipped, you can move diagonally) 08:17:15 thanks for the tip 08:19:41 FR: complete the missing elemental combos like fire/ice, ice/air... 08:24:39 FR: There is not much space for new races so maybe subraces are the future. Like for example with cat the base could be more magic oriented and the "Manul" subrace is more chonky and combat/shapeshifting oriented 08:43:44 <08nicolae> the subspecies concept comes up occasionally, i think the downside -- aside from having to come up with all those decent subspecies -- is that it overloads a new player with even more decisions 08:54:41 Is the holy enemy that summons a paladin alrdy in the game? I'm in holy shoals atm 08:57:39 <04dracoomega> Fravashi are in the game, if that's what you mean (but I don't think any of them are in holy Shoals, regardless) 08:58:11 Yes that's the one 08:59:06 Also I died to a mighted angel I kinda forgor that I was demonspawn and I kinda forgot all options I had of which I had plenty 08:59:10 typical crawl moment 09:01:29 <06pleasingfungus> subspecies also have ui issues 09:02:04 <06pleasingfungus> but tbqh i’d be more enthusiastic about subspecies if i wasn’t so enthusiastic about removing our less exciting existing species :p 09:04:19 we don't believe that anymore pf, even md came back 09:04:25 what's next, hobbits?? 09:05:03 speaking of less exciting species 09:05:40 I would legit play mummy before I touch ghoul or vp 09:05:43 especially ghoul 09:05:56 at least with mummy you know it's gonna suck 09:12:12 <04dracoomega> I'm still planning to do that in 0.33! 09:12:20 <04dracoomega> Slowly churning forward 09:12:36 <04dracoomega> (Ghoul and VP specifically are the ones slated for changes/replacement) 10:57:51 <08nicolae> combining them into the ghoulpire 12:10:43 <09gammafunk> GhAM must be left intact 12:11:07 glam GhAM 12:17:57 <06pleasingfungus> i have bad news about AM… 12:27:29 <06mumra> Was having some thoughts about XP evokers. Basically: what if there's new equipment slot for them. In the UI we say "activate" instead of "equip", but there are say 3 slots so you can only have that many active at a time. Only the active ones will charge or can be evoked. (If you deactivate one it loses all its charge, so there's definitely no incentive to charge up a bunch of them and carry them around. Or just make swapping them take 12:27:29 prohibitively long). This changes a few things: - Charges are no longer a prop of the player, each item holds its own charge properties. - They no longer have to be restricted in terms of only generating once, or limited to item sets. All evokers can generate in a game. No issues of e.g. missing out on one forever because it was in a gauntlet. But there's no benefit to hoarding them in your inventory anymore. - They can generate pre-charged 12:27:30 (particularly from shops or acquirement). Finding a charged one can still be useful even if you already have one. - It's even valid to equip multiple of the same evoker now as they have separate charges. - Now we can have artifact evokers too. They can draw from an evoker-only set of egos e.g.: +charges, +charge speed, +power (and negative versions of these, so you can have ones with pros and cons.) With having less evokers you can use at once they can 12:27:30 afford to get a bit more powerful, and it's nice if this is more dependent on finding items. Make the base evokers weaker but then it's possible to find extra powerful versions, and their drop rate is even raised. Can have further interesting egos e.g. "Overdrive: Expends all charges at once but gets big power boost from additional charges spent". 12:27:31 <06mumra> - The number of evoker slots can also be manipulated; e.g. Gadgeteer can give you +1 evoker slot now. Maybe Coglins can have +1 innate, and a further +1 from their gadgeteer gizmo, so they can stack up to six if they find gloves too. (Maybe the base number of slots isn't fixed at 3, but rather starts at 1 and increases up to 3 with evo skill; it's maybe weird having such discrete skill breakpoints but it makes sense the more skilled you 12:27:31 are, the more gadgets you can juggle.) Just some thoughts quickly penned down but interested to know what others think. 12:28:08 Strap yourselves for this one, cause I am going to go ahead and say it. I sincerely believe that we live in a world where 12:28:18 worshipping Xom is better than having no god 12:28:27 You did a tremendous job on that one 12:32:56 Also hexslinger is fun. Shoot things pew pew but also do tricks with magic and stuff 12:33:34 Also also whoever came up with that temporal blood mutation is very creative and handsome. What a wonderfully bizarre concept 12:37:04 <06regret-⸸nde※> %git a98c639 12:37:06 <04Cerebot> regret-index * 0.33-a0-62-ga98c639910: New mutation: haste allies when injured (7 weeks ago, 14 files, 121+ 10-) https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/a98c63991082 12:38:10 <06regret-⸸nde※> (I'd like to be able to pull off butch looks enough to really deserve a descriptor like "handsome", but a compliment is a compliment.) 12:39:18 that's the spirit 12:40:27 <06regret-⸸nde※> This seems like this solves none of the problems evokers have (a large number of people can only be bothered to use phial, then lightning rod, then gravitambourine because those are by far the strongest with minimal investment) and only adds new problems (now all of the ones that aren't those are even weaker because they're directly competing with having those equipped, except if they're using new distractingly complicated 12:40:28 number properties). 12:41:04 <06regret-⸸nde※> (Also evokers already generate pre-charged?) 12:43:51 <06regret-⸸nde※> I'd much rather see the 62 items PR be handled properly then inevitably only get people to use e.g. randart box / sack / vane in a game unlucky enough to not generate the other ones and wanting some side resists or stats. 12:54:34 <04dracoomega> So, 'do a bunch of things with evokers' was already on my 0.33 to-do list, so I'm going to respond both with my intended plans and also attempt to respond to some of your points directly: 12:54:43 <04dracoomega> -I think 'item sets' and 'can only generate once per game' are separate aspects that aren't intrinsically linked. I think that the awkwardness of losing an entire evoker for the rest of a run due to branch splits in a Gauntlet and other such situations is unfortunate (and different than 'losing' any other unrand that way), but that the item pool model is a positive one. Sure, part of what the item pool model does is curtail the 12:54:44 incentive to carry Way Too Many Things around (which strictly limited evoker slots as you propose would also), but another part is that it actually changes what options are available in a given run and what evocations skill means in that game and I think this part is quite positive. -Generating all evokers each game (possibly with higher drop rates, as you mention!), with them all being governed by the same skill, significantly risks biasing 12:54:44 loadouts towards the same 'best' items over and over. Especially if you can even use multiple copies of the same thing! I feel this leads to much less diversity of tools in practice. -(Being able to find versions of evokers that are stronger or slightly different from game to game is a nice possibility, though the power formulas for some of them are fairly 'brittle' in some ways or wouldn't care much about this.) -I also have some UI concerns with 12:54:45 variable evoker slots that change based on gear, and how losing slots affects what evokers get knocked off or lose charge as a consequence. These are not insurmountable, but I'm not convinced the rest of the proposal here produces an overall better dynamic, since it seems likely to result in more people just having fewer tools that are more likely to be homogeneous. -Making the code for handling evoker charges on the backend a little nicer would be 12:54:45 nice, but I think doesn't hinge on this, either way. 12:54:50 <04dracoomega> As for my own plans, I wanted to add a bunch of new evokers, and change the pool rules so that there aren't specifically alternating pairs of evokers, but rather 'Generate 5 types each game from the entire possible space of types', which allows for more diverse combinations of things to generate. Unlike wands, where there are certain roles that we probably want to reliably exist, I feel like evokers have already not been that and 12:54:50 would benefit from being even less that. Regarding the 'can lose out on 1 of your 5 possible evokers forever due to unfortunate RNG' problem, my own thought was something closer to 'finding a second copy of an existing evoker upgrades that one you have (probably showing a +1/2/3 or whatnot)' giving it a faster recharge rate (since recharge rate is something a lot less brittle about per-evoker scaling effects than power is, while still being relevant). 12:54:51 This means that even if there aren't 'randomized versions' of evokers, the player will still some games have an 'extra-good' version of particular ones. (And possibly sometimes introduce relevant purchasing decisions about whether or not to buy a second copy of something, perhaps). This is definitely less rich than an entire ego system (but I do think there's significant design taxes with most egos trying to work on items with such wildly varied effects 12:54:51 from each other). 13:08:38 <06mumra> Indeed, that's a rather simpler way to achieve the same goals (and I thought you probably had a plan in this regard) 13:13:19 <06mumra> And I do have a couple of evoker designs in prototype form to add to the pool, that I may or may not finish this version. I'm trying to get various monster designs polished first as they are quite near some sort of readiness now 13:15:13 <04dracoomega> (For my part, I'm still chipping away at Forgecraft over hee) 13:19:34 <04dracoomega> Currently having remarkable difficulty doing something incredibly simple, as is The Crawl Way 13:42:17 <08nicolae> there should be an evoker that just makes everybody have a nice day 🙂 14:16:15 <06pleasingfungus> but what if that increases happiness for that one guy i don’t like… 14:32:29 <09hellmonk> what if there was an evoker that maximized utility for me personally and did not consider any externalities 14:34:42 beware of definitions of "utility" (remember King Midas?) 14:35:32 "this evoker gives you the chance to get lots of XP all at once… if you don't get squashed like a bug" 14:37:12 <06pleasingfungus> new utilitarian fork, featuring MONS_UTILITY as the endboss 15:02:35 <08nicolae> i simply won't point it at myself 15:05:11 <08nicolae> if we do go to "5 evokers from a set of X", i wonder if the fact that evokers have to recharge would make it worthwhile to implement a few ancient divination/charms spells as evokers 🤔 since you can't just spam them and their existence isn't guaranteed 15:14:34 <08nicolae> though i guess the "evocable that gives you buffs" is sorta kinda the talisman space 15:15:15 <06pleasingfungus> eh, i’d call it reasonably distinct 15:15:50 <06pleasingfungus> evocable buffs seem plausible to me. i’d be a bit more skeptical of the divinations, just because they tend to be more powerful than fun, but maybe? 15:18:44 <12ge0ff> 0.33: The Return of Detect Secret Doors 15:28:57 <08nicolae> yeah, after i said that i thought about it a little more and thought there weren't really very many good ones. i guess i just want to never run out of revelation scrolls for rune vaults. 15:48:23 <06pleasingfungus> global detect monsters is probably the big one 16:22:15 <03implojin> Personally, I'm not thrilled about adding equipment slots, it exacerbates inventory pressure that players will feel compelled to fill; I think it was already arguably a mistake for talismans to be presented as items players are sometimes pressured to carry, instead of something goldified and abstracted (PF tried to mitigate this by letting them be droppable, but). Some of this does seem like it could work without evokers being 16:22:16 equipment, though? 16:40:48 <08nicolae> there we go. mapping and detect monsters in one. 16:54:08 <08wormsofcan> when are we adding god pools 🤔 16:59:09 <06mumra> Maybe something that creates doors ? 17:05:25 <06mumra> One of my prototypes gives you some limited regen, of a sort 17:42:41 <09hellmonk> In hellcrawl2 18:03:51 <04dracoomega> Is there any particular reason that casting summons over a spell's cap gives ENCH_SUMMON_CAPPED to the summons slated to expire, which then causes them to leave after a very brief length of time, rather than just removing them immediately. Is this some historical thing related to it being less clear how you can just force a timeout on a monster immediately? (Or is there some other reason not immediately obvious to me?) 18:46:29 <06pleasingfungus> it seems like there must have been some reason, but it also seems bad (from a mechanical clarity perspective) 19:07:53 <06mumra> So I believe my thinking at the time was that this was just a slightly "softer" cap, i.e. you could push a bit over the limit with repeated casting. And/or that it was a more interesting looking effect. Obviously a long time ago. And obviously in hindsight, yeah, this is not particularly useful mechanically and probably just confusing. 19:08:47 <06mumra> %git 178395b 19:08:48 <04Cerebot> mumra * 0.13-a0-2022-g178395be99: Limit number of summons per spell type (11 years ago, 4 files, 155+ 18-) https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/178395be99e9 19:26:13 <04dracoomega> I mean, they expire so quickly that it usually looks instant (was there a longer delay in past?) 19:29:00 * geekosaur wonders if this is the summons equivalent of a fineff 19:31:05 <04dracoomega> I don't believe so 19:32:12 <04dracoomega> (Mind you, a handful of things handled forcibly expiring summons in different and mildly inconsistent ways before, but after the summons refactoring I did, just doing a KILL_TIMEOUT directly should always have exactly the intended effect) 22:09:22 New branch created: pull/4094 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/4094 22:09:23 03heinrich02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/4094 * 0.33-a0-250-gf78a5f1ff2: Changed resting with inhibited regeneration mutation 10(88 minutes ago, 3 files, 10+ 4-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/f78a5f1ff289 22:53:31 03Implojin02 07* 0.33-a0-251-g3dacd37fa5: Clarify spellcasting tutorial phrasing (Noctsol) 10(7 minutes ago, 2 files, 15+ 11-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/3dacd37fa591 23:13:01 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.33-a0-251-g3dacd37fa5 (34) 23:35:10 <06mumra> I'm confused tbh looking back at that commit. The original summons data had a timeout value which was set to 2 for all summons types... I multiplied this by 5 so was setting duration to 10 in fact. Was this always 1 turn? I know back then energy was randomised, so maybe 10 meant a chance of summons lasting more than 1 turn. My comments indicate "1 or 2 turns" which I do remember it sort of being. 23:46:18 What are the biggest new killers and is it sun moth and that ant unique 23:46:41 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.33-a0-251-g3dacd37fa5