00:45:24 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.33-a0-605-gc3d0ca870a 01:18:48 <04dracoomega> Currently, if you gain a mutation that would prevent you from wearing an item that is currently melded, it waits until you untransform to remove that item. Is there... really any reason to defer this rather than unmelding it immediately? 01:19:37 <04dracoomega> I mean, maybe it is slightly silly that growing future claws pushes your gloves out of your snake form, but it's also silly that while in snake form you can get messages about what is happening to the feet that you do not have 02:35:57 03regret-index02 07* 0.33-a0-606-g7e861bf89c: Loose, miscellaneous tiles tweaks and additions 10(7 minutes ago, 29 files, 71+ 29-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/7e861bf89c55 02:35:57 03regret-index02 07* 0.33-a0-607-gf2ebe9ab39: New sky beast tile (pianoman523) 10(6 minutes ago, 2 files, 3+ 3-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/f2ebe9ab39b2 03:57:49 There's a typo in alphashops.des. It now includes "manual of forgercraft" rather than forgecraft. 04:34:55 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-5249-g4a8afe7061 05:19:31 Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.33-a0-607-gf2ebe9a (34) 07:59:01 03nlavsky02 07* 0.33-a0-608-g7e41ec5257: fix: a typo (Aliscans) 10(4 minutes ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/7e41ec5257a1 08:38:40 -!- TAS-2012v is now known as TAS_2012v 09:26:18 <09gammafunk> I always knew that nicolae was a forger! 09:56:56 <08nicolae> look it was spelled right when i submitted it, 14:30:06 <09gammafunk> cpp static vector> _base_staff_weights() { // Small chance to pick a totally random staff, independent of skill. // For some reason. vector> weights = {{ NUM_STAVES, 5 }}; for (int i = 0; i < NUM_STAVES; i++) { stave_type staff = static_cast(i); if (!item_type_removed(OBJ_STAVES, staff)) weights.push_back({staff, 14:30:06 _skill_rdiv(staff_skill(staff))}); } return weights; } "For some reason" doesn't bode well 14:33:57 <09gammafunk> for context, this is specifically in the context of acquirement 14:34:19 <09gammafunk> wasn't planning to change it, but it strikes me as a bit odd 14:34:36 <04dracoomega> Honestly, people seem to largely find staff acquirement quite unexciting outside of randarts 14:35:15 <09gammafunk> yeah, for a lot of characters it's an excellent item, since cheap spellpower is very good, and I've always been excited about them 14:35:26 <04dracoomega> Perhaps a combination of most of them being inherently narrow in who cares about them, and also not so rare that someone who cares about one isn't likely to eventually find one anyway 14:35:54 <09gammafunk> sure, although the second part of what you said really does apply to a lot of other items as well 14:36:01 <09gammafunk> like acquirement of jewellery etc 14:36:46 <09gammafunk> I know that talk of rethinking the enhancer stave slot usage idea comes up from time to time, but I think the fact that they're also a "compelling" melee weapon in their own right 14:36:49 <04dracoomega> Yeah, this isn't like... a nuanced advocating for change here, just an observation that staff acquirement seems to be complained about more than I see other things complained about. 14:36:53 <04dracoomega> Aside from maybe +0 hats 14:38:24 <04dracoomega> (Mostly I was reminded in the context of 'Chance of an unweighted staff' which probably is more likely to be definitely unappealing than other random gear is, maybe?) 14:38:47 <04dracoomega> (Not that one wants every ?acq choice to be sure to beappealing, of course) 14:39:51 <09gammafunk> yeah, "here, you lucked into the small chance of a totally random staff" doesn't seem either compelling or necessary 14:40:06 <09gammafunk> just because you already have a perfectly fine chance of not getting the staves you'd want anyhow 16:40:18 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.33-a0-608-g7e41ec5257 (34) 18:59:50 MackTheFife (L13 FeSu) ASSERT(m.alive()) in 'mon-transit.cc' at line 71 failed. (Lair:4) 19:36:29 03dolorous02 07* 0.33-a0-609-g563f8729d4: Fix typo. 10(41 seconds ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/563f8729d413 19:52:43 03gammafunk02 07* 0.33-a0-610-g6fa848a78e: Improve aspects of randart property assignment 10(7 hours ago, 1 file, 177+ 108-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/6fa848a78e75 19:52:43 03gammafunk02 07* 0.33-a0-611-ga97fc534a3: A minor fix to randart property accounting 10(7 hours ago, 1 file, 11+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/a97fc534a3a0 19:52:43 03gammafunk02 07* 0.33-a0-612-gd6aff4a22f: Remove a special distribution for rings of slaying 10(4 hours ago, 1 file, 1+ 11-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/d6aff4a22f2e 19:52:43 03gammafunk02 07* 0.33-a0-613-g9283c139d4: Reroll items that conflict with any fixed artprops 10(5 hours ago, 4 files, 135+ 46-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/9283c139d459 21:26:19 03gammafunk02 07* 0.33-a0-614-ga1de10103b: Update DES syntax documentation on artprops 10(36 seconds ago, 1 file, 17+ 10-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/a1de10103bcf 21:27:46 <04dracoomega> I have spent so many hours trying to get these stat-zero transformation warnings to work properly now (not just with the new equipment system; I found several situations where you currently can hit stat zero through transformation with no warning at all, or even hit stat zero in the middle of an operation where there is no point where you'd visibly have less than 0 in a stat). And I keep feeling increasingly like it would be better 21:27:47 to just remove current stat-zero behavior so that we don't need to worry about prompting for it at all >.> 21:28:12 <04dracoomega> This may sound facetious, but I'm somewhat serious. While I do like the sort of 'medium-term' damage that stat loss theoretically represents, in some ways the current system feels a bit vestigial. Especially since brain feed was removed, there are very few meaningful sources of stat damage in the game (at least until Hell/Tomb). And most stat damage the player can take is mild enough that suffering meaningful consequences from it 21:28:13 is unlikely (it tends to require a character with very lopsided stats, and then getting unlucky with which stat gets hit, such that most characters aren't even ever at risk, and even those which are are still unlikely to be affected.) I think a couple factors play into this. For stats that are important, you usually have enough of them that losing a couple points isn't really very much of a penalty (and there's no realistic way to come close to zero 21:28:13 outside Tomb and such). And for stats that are at risk of hitting 0, losing any amount of them is completely irrelevant until you hit that threshold. But the penalties of hitting 0 are so extreme that we can't be comfortable using stat damage in larger amounts in most places; 'irresistible paralysis, but only when the stars align' just isn't that much fun, I think. And when it comes to -stat properties on randarts, I'm not sure how often the zero 21:28:14 threshold actually makes for interesting decisions. How often does a MiBe really want to wear int gear (or level int) so that they can use a -int item that is otherwise exciting? I kind of doubt it happens all that much. 21:28:30 <04dracoomega> But at the same time, I do think that medium-term strategic damage is interesting (and I had a couple other ideas in that vein that I wanted to try exploring at some point, like giving very specific transient mutations), so I'm not really advocating for simply outright cutting all of this. But what if we remove the paralysis effect completely and change the stat-specific downside statuses somewhat. (They're fairly uneven, but also 21:28:31 sometimes relative redundant with themselves: not being able to cast spells with 0 int is irrelevant since having 0 int already makes you absolutely terrible at that on its own; same with 0 dex preventing dodging). What if these didn't come with permaslow at all and were something like: Collapse: Unable to dodge (or massive penalty to EV, anyway) Brainless: Unable to use scrolls or evocables Clumsy: High chance to fumble your attacks. (This is 21:28:31 specifically aimed to make these effects relevant even to the characters where the stat in question is a dump stat, while still being thematically related to the word we've been using. I realize that 0 str preventing dodging may sound like a stretch, but I mean if you're barely able to stand upright...) The statuses wouldn't need to have the current behavior of lasting for a bunch of turns after recovering from 0 either: just something present while at 21:28:32 0 and otherwise not. And in this schema, I don't think we need to worry about giving the player warnings for it. Sure, being at 0 is bad, but like... bad in a way that swapping rC- on in an ice cave is bad. No acute immediate swing or lasting effects - just a downside of your current gearset or situation. (And it would then also be possible to use this more liberally because of it being less acute/swingy) 21:40:08 <09gammafunk> ??brainless 21:40:09 <04Cerebot> stat drain[2/4]: 0 str: Collapse: No regen with monsters in {LOS}. 0 int: Brainless: Can't memorize or cast spells or read scrolls. 0 dex: Clumsy: 0 stealth, minimal evasion, can't stab, can't block. All three effects slow you (doesn't stack). 21:40:30 <09gammafunk> ??stat drain 21:40:31 <04Cerebot> stat drain[1/4]: Stats can be temporarily reduced by various effects and restored gradually by gaining XP. If a stat reaches 0 you are immediately paralysed for 2-4 turns, you are slowed, and have other nasty effects depending on the stat (see {stat drain[2]}. These effects persist for a short time after the stat recovers. 21:42:33 <09gammafunk> this is a fairly minor point, but it feels a bit odd to not allow evoking as a 0 int penalty when int generally has nothing to do with evocations 21:43:03 <09gammafunk> vaguely thematically it does because "operating a complex device of sorts", but 21:44:05 <09gammafunk> I guess Str being connected to EV is also kind of tenuous and that makes a lot more sense for Dex than Str 21:51:44 <04dracoomega> Well, the specific point of the penalties being as they were is that they mattered even if the stat itself didn't matter. That either you are worsened by a stat you care about being reduced, or you are worsened if a stat you don't care about is so low that you get the extra penalty. That was the idea behind that. 21:52:13 <04dracoomega> (Scrolls don't have anything more to do with int than wands do, mechanically, after all) 21:52:15 <09gammafunk> yes, true 22:02:18 <09gammafunk> I think removing the the paralysis/slow and the weird duration-like aspect to the negative effects after a stat has been restored are reasonable. I've always found the latter to be pretty odd. I guess losing all of those does take a good deal of the immediate threat of stat-0 away that your proposed penalties can't fully compensate for, but it's as you say it opens up more use 22:03:47 <09gammafunk> The "iconic" stat drain of ghost moths and GOOE and klown pies of the 3-rune game will probably be fine 22:03:51 <09gammafunk> *??great orb of eyes 22:03:52 <04Cerebot> great orb of eyes (G) | Spd: 10 | HD: 13 | HP: 59-78 | AC/EV: 10/3 | Dam: 20 | see invisible, fly | Res: will(120) | Vul: silver | XP: 881 | Sp: vitrify [!sil], mindburst (d51) [!sil], polymorph [!sil], confuse [!sil] | Sz: Large | Int: human. 22:03:59 <09gammafunk> rats, I'm out of date 22:04:12 <09gammafunk> *0.30?great orb of eyes 22:04:13 <04Cerebot> great orb of eyes (G) | Spd: 10 | HD: 12 | HP: 55-76 | AC/EV: 10/3 | Dam: 20 | see invisible, fly | Res: will(120) | XP: 888 | Sp: paralyse [!sil], mindburst (d48) [!sil], drain magic [!sil], confuse [!sil] | Sz: Large | Int: human. 22:04:42 <09gammafunk> yeah I must just be misremembering them as stat drainers or something 22:04:43 <09gammafunk> ??mindburst 22:04:45 <04Cerebot> wand of mindburst[1/2]: A wand that does Will-resisted damage that is very effective against monsters with low HP. Evocations increases the success rate and damage. Called wand of disintegration before 0.27, where it worked on {brainless} monsters. 22:08:24 <08wormsofcan> wearing a -int ring to become immune to mindburst 22:08:58 <06regret-⸸nde※> (Brain Feed was on neqoxecs, glowing orange brains, and orange crystal statues.) 22:10:29 <04dracoomega> Yeah, certainly stat zero would be a lot less dangerous in this schema than it is at present, but then stat loss could also be in quantities relevant to character who do care about that stat without being randomly incredibly dangerous to other characters. Yet still providing downsides that are clearly relevant and will be felt even by people who don't otherwise want that stat. 22:12:48 <04dracoomega> (For the record, currently you get no warning for stat zero that would happen by either melding or unmelding gear - which can definitely happen in a situation where that matters if drinking !lignification or something. But also, you can get stat zero in the middle of turning into something like a dragon, which gets a large stat natural stat bonus. Your gear melds first and then you can hit stat zero and be paralyzed (again, with 22:12:48 a warning) even though the +10 str from dragon form would more than compensate.) 22:13:17 <04dracoomega> So you can have positive strength both in and out of dragon form, yet get paralyzed swapping into it 22:17:16 <04dracoomega> I tried reversing the order of some parts of that, but that currently has other issues 22:18:27 <04dracoomega> (I already wrote a relatively sophisticated system for handling proper stat zero prompts for a complete sequence of removing and equipping multiple items, but talismans have their own additional challenges) 22:29:30 <09hellmonk> it was so you couldn't ring swap to instantly clear it in old-ass versions 22:29:38 <09hellmonk> I am pretty sure 22:31:43 <09hellmonk> I suppose this is still relevant, kinda 22:40:06 <09hellmonk> Stat zero has always been in a pretty weird place. A long time ago it was ofc a spoilery instant death mechanic (and then for a while it was a delayed instant death mechanic) before getting turned into its present form of "thing that would kill you if it existed outside of mnoleg's level on undead and that one quasit vault". I think I removed it in hellcrawl or some other fork and just capped stats from below at 1, but that does remove 22:40:06 the occasionally interesting play around randarts with really big stat penalties to an otherwise irrelevant stat. Wrt stat drain, in practice you could probably use it more than it currently is but do keep in mind that every time you get int (or str if wearing armour) drained you have to check spell failure rates, which was something people kinda disliked about old skilldrain. 22:45:29 <09hellmonk> If we don't care about the randart thing I am wondering about cap stats from below at 1 and if you would get drained below 1, take a large amount of irresistible damage instead 22:45:55 <09hellmonk> maybe that is more boring but I think it's easy to understand 22:48:00 <04dracoomega> Do you think that status effects with relatively simple/flat effects aren't relatively easy to understand? (Certainly a lot more texture than just damage, I think) 22:48:30 <06regret-⸸nde※> (The draining formula is also not the greatest to lean even harder on, really.) 22:49:05 <04dracoomega> Also: while it's worth keeping the comparison to skill draining in mind (regarding spell failure rates from int loss), I think a decent part of that was how omnipresent draining itself was. So you'd get small amounts of it turning on and off with regularity, which isn't likely to be the case here, even if it was used more than it is at present. 22:49:24 <09hellmonk> yeah, I agree re: the draining thing 22:49:48 <09hellmonk> I think if you keep stat drain limited in terms of distribution then it's probably fine 22:53:18 <09hellmonk> I wonder then if it's even necessary to change much from the current effects. Collapse as no regen with monsters in los, brainless as no spells/no scrolls, and clumsy as no dodging or blocking 22:53:42 <09hellmonk> (I am a bit hesitant on clumsy becoming attack fumble chance in particular, because a lot of characters don't really care about that) 22:56:43 <04dracoomega> I mean, the specifics aren't anything I'm married to, exactly. The goal was something that felt relevant enough to notice on a majority of characters that wouldn't otherwise care about that stat. (Do you really think enough characters don't care about attacking, though?) 22:57:01 <04dracoomega> (-regen felt weak to me, tbh) 22:57:29 <09hellmonk> well currently you can't fumble a ranged attack, no? So anyone with a launcher or using spells for damage doesn't care 22:57:38 <09hellmonk> and you can also throw freely 22:57:45 <04dracoomega> Oh, well, I mean whatever it was would apply to ranged combat, certainly 22:58:04 <04dracoomega> (I... guess I forgot that launchers didn't fumble in water, even >.>) 22:58:23 <04dracoomega> Though any launcher character already cares about their dex being gone, I guess 22:58:41 <04dracoomega> It's just the str characters who don't (and surely they all want to attack?) 22:59:04 <09hellmonk> mostly concerned about spell havers being unaffected, though it's true that losing dex probably hurts "everyone" because you lose a bunch of ev/sh 22:59:05 <06regret-⸸nde※> (...With eyes being kept on ranged combat being too flat in tactics as is, I have to wonder if launchers should fumble in water by default anyway.) 22:59:26 <04dracoomega> Yeah, I felt most casters were going to care about their EV 22:59:36 <04dracoomega> Because they're unlikely to be in armour so heavy that doesn't matter 22:59:48 <09hellmonk> but my mdee in ocpa is gonna be eating good 23:00:12 <04dracoomega> (It obviously doesn't have to equally affect everyone. But should affect a majority of people to a relevant degree, is what I felt.) 23:00:57 <04dracoomega> (And 'no dodging' is something a lot of characters with dex as a dump stat already weren't planning on doing. Admittedly 'no blocking' is relevant) 23:01:07 <04dracoomega> Though I'm not sure if by enough? 23:01:30 <09hellmonk> I think if you apply fumbling to ranged and throwing it's probably fine 23:01:40 <04dracoomega> (And again, -regen does something for everyone, but it feels like too small an effect to stand on its own for a debuff that is fairly transient and which you have to somewhat work to get) 23:02:01 <04dracoomega> People regularly live with just having that all the time 23:22:06 <04dracoomega> Really, why don't launchers fumble in water, anyway? Aside from the realistic truth that it's just ancient and they never did that. It's an attack! 23:22:48 <04dracoomega> Is it for parity with wands and spells and such? (Which I don't think ought to fumble, to be clear) 23:25:35 <09hellmonk> genuinely have no idea 23:26:36 <04dracoomega> (I mean, I can imagine old 'realism' ideas that it doesn't involve your lower body as much and therefore wouldn't care) 23:27:23 <04dracoomega> (Also, in olden days, you couldn't even bump attack with launchers, so it was always a separate interface/codepath) 23:28:59 <09hellmonk> I think you'd need your lower body a good amount to throw a javelin properly, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the explanation 23:29:10 <09hellmonk> apparently fumble chance used to depend on dexterity 23:31:49 <04dracoomega> See! And ancient thematic connection! >.> 23:32:32 <09hellmonk> fr: unify player and monster fumble chance while we're at it 23:32:35 <04dracoomega> But really, I don't particularly care for detailed realism arguments either way on the subject. Just... would it be better gameplay if ranged attacks cared about being in water or not? 23:33:08 <04dracoomega> (I do think ranged combat already cares about positioning too little at present. Not that this would change that very much in the broader sense) 23:33:11 <06regret-⸸nde※> That's a pretty huge Leda's buff.... 23:33:29 <04dracoomega> Oh, hmm 23:34:01 <09hellmonk> oh god the speed penalty is on different sides too 23:34:08 <09hellmonk> this is forbidden deep technology 23:34:19 <04dracoomega> Oh, you mean the whole 'entering versus leaving' thing? 23:34:23 <09hellmonk> yeah 23:34:44 <04dracoomega> I wonder if some of that is a consequence of player and monster speed/energy being essentially different systems that only try to keep parity with each other 23:35:25 Unstable branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.33-a0-614-ga1de10103b (34) 23:35:32 <09hellmonk> in principle I would prefer if terrain tiles worked the same way for players and monsters, but it's possible there is some reason we can't do this (or it's better not to) 23:35:53 <04dracoomega> Yeah, I'm not sure 23:36:17 <09hellmonk> I guess unifying water either makes luring back to it even more gooder or the player penalty not severe enough 23:36:28 <04dracoomega> (Hard to be sure if it's an ancient coincidence or a reasonable code concession, without closer investigation) 23:37:02 <09hellmonk> the 37.5% thing was chosen to match old player rates with average dex 23:37:03 <04dracoomega> Oh, I guess currently monsters don't get penalized for just being drawn into one tile of water to fight them 23:37:08 <09hellmonk> there's an elliptic commit about it 23:37:28 <09hellmonk> they still fumble, don't they 23:37:36 <04dracoomega> (I mean, I think players being penalized more heavily for something than monsters are generally makes sense in a lot of cases) 23:37:42 <04dracoomega> Er, I meant movement speed-wise 23:37:47 <04dracoomega> Sorry, wasn't specific enough 23:38:07 <09hellmonk> yeah, you would only gain distance if you let them move out of the water 23:38:09 <04dracoomega> But like, I think it's common enough that the player back them up into just one to fight there 23:39:43 <09hellmonk> I think it's better to do this with monsters that are just immune to the terrain or benefit from it (like in shoals or swamp) instead of having two sets of values that you have to describe both of (or leave it undescribed and players either assume they're the same or look it up and find out it's not) 23:39:54 <09hellmonk> this is very much "assume a perfectly spherical crawl" though 23:41:08 <04dracoomega> I mean... it makes sense to me to penalize the player more since the player can manipulate the effect in ways that monsters cannot. Lots of stuff is asymmetric in Crawl. (And lots of things about monster combat versus player combat is also different anyway) 23:41:33 <04dracoomega> (And any chance to make it more symmetric would be a strict player buff, at present - no matter if you raise the monster fumble chance or lower the player one) 23:41:34 <06regret-⸸nde※> (I feel like terrain discrepancies already exist in other pretty pointed ways, when clouds do differing amounts of damage due to player and monster HP and AC not remotely matching up by default.) 23:58:28 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.33-a0-614-ga1de10103b