03:36:46 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-5261-gd9800d219b 08:25:02 <04d​racoomega> So, I've been making steady progress on the new Tomb monsters for the past while. And although things are going reasonably okay now, I've been getting increasingly conscientious of the time since our last release. Even if we froze today (which we're obviously not going to), 0.35 would release about 7 months after 0.34. And certainly we can afford some more time than that, but if I'm being realistic, there's no way Tomb is going to 08:25:02 be trunk-worthy in less than 2-3 more weeks and even that is probably optimistic. (And it may take more time to get a sufficient amount of testing data than many features, given the number of permutations of dynasties involved, and Tomb coming at the end of 15-rune games, which most players don't do most of the time.) Basically, I'm concerned that this means either delaying 0.35 for a couple more months or not being able to be fully confident of the 08:25:03 polish/balance of the branch that stable players are going to be left with for the following 6+ months after that. 0.35 has otherwise been a little content-light compared to other recent versions and it would be nice to have another big headlining feature before release. I guess the issue is that the timeline is on the cusp where getting this done and polished might be doable, but unclear. And while there's a handful of quicker features I could do 08:25:03 instead to wrap the version up, if I start any of them now, then I definitely can't expect to get the Tomb stuff done in time, so I feel I have to make a final decision on what I'm doing and where we stand with the timeline very soon. 08:25:13 <04d​racoomega> @gammafunk On that note, do you have any thoughts on scheduling (considering you're the one who handles tournament stuff)? I'd usually have expected to hear more questions from people about when the tourney is happening by this point, but perhaps it feels like less time has passed because less new stuff has made its way to trunk? (As personally convenient as it would be for me to just work on this task until it's done, and worry 08:25:13 about the tournament after that, I also don't want to be responsible for holding everyone up indefinitely. ^^; ) 09:25:23 <09g​ammafunk> I'm generally pretty open for the tournament being whenever, although I will say that it's best if it's no sooner than the beginning of October. After September is more convenient for me, and we might have some issues with Cerebot that I'll have to resolve soon. It would be good to have any required changes well taken care of before people want to run all those tournament queries etc. Any additional time required before tournament in 09:25:23 terms of further delays is fine by me, if it's necessary. 09:33:17 <09g​ammafunk> The Tomb changes do sound compelling and possibly that warrants another 8 month release cycle, but it sounds like there's no guarantee it will actually be 8 months? In which case some other smaller features could be good. I'm not sure that delaying the actual tournament is a huge concern, fwiw. It's probably more important to people that there be enough compelling features to actually play in the tournament. Running parallel to this 09:33:17 discussion is the fact that we're really not planning any large scale tournament changes. I'm not sure if we have any specific changes in mind; I'd have to read the post-tournament discussions had in discord (and probably ping a few tournament players to ask as well). 10:36:38 <04d​racoomega> Yeah, I think it might be done by the 8 month mark, but I'm increasingly wary of banking on it to the exclusion of getting other tasks done first. (It's hard to promise anything so specific when the scope is as large as it's gotten, and there's so much to playtest. And then some unknown fraction of that stuff will probably want some revising, etc.) I certainly think there's no risk of me advocating for the tourney to be before 10:36:39 October, mind you. There's always an endless list of things I could be working on - it's just a matter of trying to break them up into chunks that are both sufficiently finalized and sufficiently exciting to people who are sticking with stable versions. Otherwise I'd just keep tinkering away at things and they'd be done when they're done ^^; 11:05:45 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-872-g37949f6ac9: Fix typos. 10(7 minutes ago, 1 file, 3+ 3-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/37949f6ac9c1 11:07:35 <06d​olorous_84348> Question regarding #5380: the typo fixes in it are correct, but the note saying it was made with AI assistance makes me nervous. Is there any sort of legal issue regarding that? 11:13:50 (who on earth needs "AI" to fix typos?) 11:14:02 <06d​olorous_84348> That's what I'm wondering too! 11:15:58 <09h​ellmonk> we really should write that ai policy huh 11:16:38 Use ours :-) 11:48:37 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-873-g56f49b53f8: Add a few more words to Crazy Yiuf's vocabulary. 10(7 minutes ago, 1 file, 6+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/56f49b53f8df 11:51:42 some people are just bad spellers 11:52:10 especially if it's an unfamiliar system (Aussie English) 11:56:35 <08o​____0> Is there a good place to check for au_en spelling specifically? I was wondering if "localization" or "localisation" would be preferred and web search was unhelpful 11:56:46 "localisation" 11:57:09 <06d​olorous_84348> I use this one: https://www.australian-dictionary.com.au/ 11:57:20 <08o​____0> Thank you both! 11:57:27 (if I'm wrong I'm going to look silly) 11:57:43 <08o​____0> that is quite a header image hahaha 11:58:18 it's mostly british/commonwealth english but there are some exceptions 11:58:59 <08o​____0> Yeah localisation is proper british english and that was easy enough to find 11:59:10 eg in BRENG we rarely if ever say "he's not here to fuck spiders" 12:00:14 <08o​____0> i have so much to learn 12:00:48 <09g​ammafunk> your knowledge of gnomes is extremely paltry, as I've been saying 12:00:49 <06d​olorous_84348> And with some of the obscure vocabulary in this game, if it's from, say, Middle English, that means it's likely in British English and Australian English by extension. (For example, "flibbertigibbet" is not in that dictionary, but it's from Middle English.) 15:29:05 New branch created: pull/5385 (4 commits) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5385 15:29:07 03CrawlOdds02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5385 * 0.35-a0-862-g0713955440: Make many spells not target warded monsters 10(4 days ago, 9 files, 73+ 35-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/071395544019 15:29:07 03CrawlOdds02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5385 * 0.35-a0-863-g192bb89896: Add a spell flag for "needs a target" 10(2 days ago, 4 files, 22+ 12-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/192bb8989626 15:29:07 03CrawlOdds02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5385 * 0.35-a0-864-gf4ac5ddb1f: Show resists and defenses in spell descriptions 10(2 days ago, 7 files, 292+ 15-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/f4ac5ddb1f56 15:29:07 03CrawlOdds02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5385 * 0.35-a0-865-g1a15d92be7: Alphabetise some switches 10(2 hours ago, 1 file, 42+ 43-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/1a15d92be765 15:44:53 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.35-a0-873-g56f49b53f8 (34) 21:41:55 <04d​racoomega> @Odds That resist info ended up a lot more concise than I was expecting. Thanks for doing it! I did have a few comments on the PR: C++ // If this is a beam, add spell information to it. targeter_beam *beam_hitf = dynamic_cast(hitfunc.get()); if (beam_hitf && beam_hitf->beam.origin_spell == SPELL_NO_SPELL) beam_hitf->beam.origin_spell = spell; Is there a reason we're doing this outside of 21:41:56 find_spell_targeter() (well, _find_spell_targeter() now). It already knows the origin spell, so couldn't we just let the targeter_beam constructor be passed that directly there, instead of this second layer of inserting it afterward? // (Can be cast by friendly monsters, even when out of combat) (Is there a reason you deleted this comment? It was referring to the mechanical purpose of spflag::recovery, which I think isn't otherwise so clear.) There 21:41:56 are a handful of spells that do weird things with resists which don't get any special mention, and I wonder if they should. -Permafrost eruption says that it checks AC normally, but the AoE part ignore AC entirely -Shatter is 'resisted' by flying or being insubstantial. Of course, in this case, the spell description itself already says a bunch, but I do wonder if there should at least by some very brief note in the stat block of it being weird (even 21:41:57 if just pointing you to the description) so as to not make is sound as 'vanilla' in its resist block. Unsure. -(LRD is likewise in a similar situation, where its AC check and damage flavour are different when used on icy things) A very minor thing, but I also wonder if { ac_type::normal, false, false, false, {} } } is used so often that it would benefit from a shorthand constexpr for reading clarity? 22:22:54 <11O​dds> Thanks for taking a look! - Is there a reason we're doing this outside of find_spell_targeter()? Not a good one, I was being lazy about rewiring a whole load of targeter constructors but I should do that 🙂 - Is there a reason I deleted the comment: oops, I didn't read carefully and thought it referred to the gone flag - Yeah, I think AC needs a "custom string override" like we have for resists, at least for permafrost and shatter. Not 22:22:54 sure about LRD, which would be complicated to describe - Yeah, commonising that expression seems a good thing 22:30:45 Unstable branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-873-g56f49b53f8 (34) 22:41:39 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-873-g56f49b53f8 23:12:18 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.35-a0-873-g56f49b53f8 (34) 23:45:25 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-873-g56f49b53f8