01:48:44 03WizardIke02 07* 0.35-a0-542-gedf2d32dfa: Fix walls with torches not animating in local tiles 10(9 minutes ago, 2 files, 6+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/edf2d32dfa04 03:34:06 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-5261-gd9800d219b 08:20:09 <11Odds> Did anyone take a look at this bug which lets you exploit exclusions to walk normally under confusion: https://discord.com/channels/205277826788622337/205316046230388737/1516613371598864535 ? If not I can pick it up 08:38:49 <04dracoomega> I hadn't yet, so feel free 08:38:59 <04dracoomega> (That's a really impressive bug, honestly) 08:39:17 <04dracoomega> Like, it's probably fairly straightforward to address, but I'm mildly surprised it hadn't gotten noticed before now 08:40:42 <11Odds> Yeah I was pretty surprised too 🙂 08:41:55 <04dracoomega> For my part, I have spent a frustratingly long time today to get something very simple that was already working in local tiles to render even partially in webtiles >.> 08:42:47 <04dracoomega> Multiple disjoint render paths and they both suck 😛 08:43:25 <08nicolae> what's the best solution there 08:45:08 <11Odds> I think we should warn for the intended move, then adjust it for confusion (rather than adjusting it and then warning for the actual move) 08:45:44 <11Odds> (Codewise this is just mildly icky because they two things share a lot of calculating-what's-going-to-happen logic, but nothing too bad) 08:47:00 <11Odds> We separately warn if any confused move could cause something really bad to happen (like a penance causing attack), which isn't affected by this 08:56:51 <04dracoomega> You're only slightly more likely to move in the direction you intend than anywhere else, so I'm not sure it makes sense to warn for that and not anything else. I wonder if makes more sense to either 'Not warn on any exclusions - you knew your destination was unpredictable and you still pressed it' or 'Warn on any adjacent exclusion, with prioritizing which you're trying to move' 09:03:24 <11Odds> Hmmmm.... you're quite a bit more likely to move in the intended direction right? I think it's 11/27 vs 2/27 in the other directions. 09:05:09 <11Odds> There are actually other checks like this as well as exclusions - at least traps and clouds 09:06:15 <04dracoomega> Hmmm 09:09:44 <11Odds> Really not sure what set of things is most useful to warn the player about for confusion moves 15:42:19 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.35-a0-542-gedf2d32dfa (34) 16:12:26 <09hellmonk> I would favor warn on any adjacent exclusion there 19:25:54 Zodroc (L1 MeCA) Crash caused by signal #6: Aborted (D:1) 20:16:52 <04dracoomega> So, I've looked over the Gravitic Shielding branch and have some thoughts: -The 'increasing cost per floor' aspect is genuinely quite interesting to me and it feels like this is probably design space that could be explored in various ways in spells (whether through contam, as Gravitic Shielding does, or strictly limited charges, ramping Drain or even MP cost, etc.) -However, I feel the rest of the spell is too conditional and/or 20:16:53 weak for it to be a good fit here. The spell wants you to do both 'cast it in very heavy armour' and 'cast it without a shield', both of which casters typically don't want to be doing. In fact, scaling off ER directly (instead of AC, like Awaken Armour or Fortress Blast do) pretty much necessitates taking significantly more investment to cast (since you can't even take advantage of the 'good' heavy caster armours like fire dragon scales). And in 20:16:53 exchange for these unconventional build requirements / limitations, you get to use it ~4-5 times per floor at most. -While the spell suffers a significant penalty for using it with a shield (losing at least half its power in realistic cases, but often more), you still have better total defenses using it with a shield instead of without one. So I think this equates to 'a benefit if you were independently not wanting to use a shield' rather than ever 20:16:54 itself encouraging someone not to use one, if that makes sense. -(Although the bonus when using dragon scales and a shield is comically bad, for the record. When casting in fire dragon scales and a kite shield, the spell gives +3 SH. And again, it's fine for spells to be build-restricted, I fear the combination of build restriction with 'very limited uses' will make the investment feel inequitable.) 20:16:54 <04dracoomega> -Incidentally, if one is using it in plate, with no shield (ie: one of the best possible cases), the spell gives +22 SH (which sounds like actually quite a lot). But the cost of getting that castable at ~12% fail in that kind of armour takes about 9900 skill points (with neutral apts), even after assuming a significant investment in armour skill 'for free'. This is enough to instead train 18 levels in an unrelated skill - ie: to get 20:16:55 a tier 4 talisman operational or just outright learn enough shield skill to get 19 SH from a tower shield 100% of the time instead of 5 times per floor. -The malmutate effect feels a very weird thematic fit to me, kind of like a random thing just stapled onto the spell. I assume the intent was to give some positional considerations to when/where you cast the spell (which I actually think is good!), but the debuff itself feels like the wrong choice to 20:16:55 me. -I'm also slightly wary of it being a translocations spell. I realize it's a somewhat natural fit (in that this is already one of the big 'melee hybrid utility' spell schools), I'm hesitant to automatically lump most spells such a character would want into that school since I feel it's already the automatic 1st choice for that sort of character learning any magic and it might be better to spread the love around. -(I realize this is mildly at 20:16:56 odds with me pointing out how huge the investment to cast the spell is, because being in tloc means it could also allow the player access to other useful spells at the same time. Design thoughts are always full of contradictions >.>) 20:16:59 <04dracoomega> Anyway, I kind of feel like it would be better for spells like this to either lean into 'odd costs / limited uses' or 'significant positional / build restrictions' and not both at the same time. At least without the effect of using the spell being significantly more dramatic. I think 'Want to use while already near monsters' (and maybe 'as many monsters as possible' or 'specific types of monsters') is a potential angle, 20:17:00 possibly with some short-term downside. (Of course, while movement penalties make thematic sense, at that point it's maybe also awfully close to Ozocubu's Armour). Perhaps something giving a larger +SH bonus the more things are next to you at once, but preventing recasting it for a decent while afterward, so that you want to maximize adjacent enemies before first using it (which has obvious opportunity costs). Another angle is maybe giving a spell like 20:17:00 this a hefty Doom cost instead (which doesn't even need to scale much or do floor tracking, since it's naturally a strategic rate-limit - you can only use it as frequently as you are able to clear that much Doom off) and possibly leaning into it being Necromancy. Would even be a thematic fit with new Revivification (which I swear I will get around to a final review and merging at some point in the not-too-distant future, since I'm really curious to see 20:17:01 how that take on it plays). 20:17:33 <04dracoomega> @hellmonk 20:18:38 <09hellmonk> I was saving the doom cost for another thing that I'm trying to work on 20:19:30 <09hellmonk> Thanks for the detailed feedback, i was mostly interested in this for the scaling contam debuff drawback angle and just sort of stapled other ideas I had onto it 20:20:17 <09hellmonk> Since I thought that had some potential as a way to do a buff spell, and I have some interest in expanding on the lugonu corrupt "once per floor" design space 20:20:52 <04dracoomega> Yeah, as I said, I think that's definitely an interesting thing to explore more 20:21:53 <09hellmonk> Conditional 27 sh in CPA will have to remain a dream... 20:22:55 <04dracoomega> (Incidentally, a spell focusing on giving lots of SH to a character without SH probably also needs to give them a block limit greater than 1 at the same time, but that's a trivial change) 20:23:56 <09hellmonk> What stats did you test the XP cost at btw 20:26:29 <04dracoomega> 25 str and 12 int (which seemed vaguely reasonable, though one certainly can do better) 20:27:49 <09hellmonk> sure 20:31:57 <09hellmonk> I did consider some variations on the sh scaling with number of nearby enemies idea but decided it might encourage some weird luring stuff. Maybe I'll revisit that. 20:32:18 <09hellmonk> Otherwise I might try to come up with a different idea for the debuff portion and then adjust numbers 20:33:45 <09hellmonk> Going to work on some other things first though 20:34:27 <04dracoomega> Sure 20:35:37 <09hellmonk> re: doom mechanics, I was thinking about a necro spell that gives you some kind of maw style fixed delay aux that uses your weapon to attack (because it is a draugr arm you graft to your body) 20:35:48 <09hellmonk> but I haven't managed to hammer out the details yet 20:36:06 <04dracoomega> (I'm not sure that luring is really much of a concern for trying to maximize a defensive buff in particular. Not sure how realistic it is to think that dragging a bunch of additional monsters around could commonly make one more safe) 20:37:03 <04dracoomega> Like, perhaps if done as part of a 'limited per-floor' casts where maximizing per-cast value is more emphasised, but I suspect not without that? 20:37:43 <04dracoomega> The floor leashing change does free us from having to fret about the most silly rat value cases, thankfully 22:36:00 Unstable branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-542-gedf2d32dfa (34) 23:00:11 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-542-gedf2d32dfa 23:12:18 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.35-a0-542-gedf2d32dfa (34) 23:56:17 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-542-gedf2d32dfa