03:31:51 New branch created: talismans (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/tree/talismans 03:31:51 03CrawlOdds02 07[talismans] * 0.35-a0-1011-gbec31b299d: Allow talismans to have plusses 10(15 hours ago, 8 files, 96+ 34-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/bec31b299d0d 03:32:21 <11Odds> @dracoomega - that branch should make talisman plusses a thing 03:33:34 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-5261-gd9800d219b 04:39:10 <04dracoomega> Thanks a bunch! Looking through it now, it somehow hadn't occurred to me that talismans would now have an unidentified state. ...should they? I guess it's sort of consistent with weapons and armour, so maybe it's fine. (And I guess it would have been an open question with talisman variants/egos whenever I get around to working on those, too.) 04:40:46 <11Odds> Did randart talismans come identified? 04:41:41 <04dracoomega> Artefacts never do 04:41:57 <04dracoomega> Even for types already identified (see jewelry) 04:43:14 <04dracoomega> Like, it possibly does make some sense for plusses to not be known until you step on something, but then that makes me wonder if we're supposed to have 'glowing' versions to indicate that a talisman you didn't step on has a plus on it, and I'm wondering at the value of that 04:43:49 <11Odds> Yeah I think we either need to make these glow or ID them 04:44:08 <11Odds> From a gameplay point of view it seems almost completely irrelevant to me 04:44:40 <11Odds> I do quite like finding glowing things and then finding out if they are any good 04:45:18 <11Odds> But then we'd need many more tiles, really 04:45:38 <04dracoomega> That is an argument in favor of it. (Though I was going to say that I still leaned towards 'don't bother to hide this, since not knowing very briefly will almost never add anything of interest' ^^; ) 04:46:09 <04dracoomega> And what concerns me most is just debate about internal consistency 04:46:23 <11Odds> (Or not, I guess we don't have artefact tiles for talismans?) 04:46:53 <11Odds> Yeah I think I’d lean mildly towards making them glowing but very weakly 04:48:32 <04dracoomega> There's been some work in past to try and make us have them, but the tiles have only been partial and not actually implemented 04:48:48 <04dracoomega> There's just a lot of different types to have an extra version of (and there keeps being more ^^; ) 04:56:12 <04dracoomega> I know it's something Index would like to happen (but that she also finds making talisman tiles mildly torturous as it is ^^; ) 04:56:47 <04dracoomega> And 0.35 is getting 4 more (and maybe even 5) 04:59:16 <11Odds> In the meantime seems fine to have them glow but not with a special tile 05:00:41 <04dracoomega> Sure, I've no objection to that 07:13:56 thiccthighs (L4 TrBe) ASSERT(oper == OPER_WIELD || target) in 'item-use.cc' at line 1031 failed. (D:4) 07:19:57 03DracoOmega02 07* 0.35-a0-1011-gfb2f094815: Fix aqua form + axes interaction (Ogregutan) 10(2 hours ago, 2 files, 6+ 4-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/fb2f094815a1 07:19:57 03DracoOmega02 07* 0.35-a0-1012-g65e644469b: Fix handling of summoned throwing nets (Flugkiller) 10(2 hours ago, 2 files, 5+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/65e644469b7a 07:19:57 03DracoOmega02 07* 0.35-a0-1013-g14b9ce1ee0: Allow summoned monsters to generate with throwing nets 10(2 hours ago, 3 files, 7+ 10-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/14b9ce1ee0ae 07:19:57 03DracoOmega02 07* 0.35-a0-1014-g0549b1e323: Fix monster Searing Ray sometimes continuing a turn while confused (Dossy) 10(52 seconds ago, 4 files, 19+ 18-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/0549b1e323f2 10:09:46 <08nicolae> They have three random bytes, but only used two of them, limiting us to only 40,000 possible shopkeeper names. thank you for thinking of the shopkeepers 10:17:41 <08nicolae> also is anyone else tickled when the dev named CrawlOdds messes with the random number generation systems, 10:18:56 <11Odds> I should use the word odds more probably 10:30:36 -!- OnASnoop1hone is now known as OnASnoopPhone 11:01:04 <09hellmonk> would like some eyes on this before I merge 11:01:27 New branch created: deathego2 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/tree/deathego2 11:01:27 03hellmonk02 07[deathego2] * 0.35-a0-1015-gb5478916d7: Rework death ego 10(4 minutes ago, 3 files, 54+ 15-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/b5478916d7d9 11:01:28 New branch created: pull/5412 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5412 11:01:28 Branch pull/5412 updated to be equal with deathego2: 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5412 11:33:35 03CrawlOdds02 07[talismans] * 0.35-a0-1012-gf04c8d1cfe: Make positively enchanted talismans glow 10(39 minutes ago, 3 files, 13+ 4-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/f04c8d1cfe48 14:37:57 <11Odds> Any opinions on this UI for displaying branches you've been shafted in? If adding this, it seemed right to explain it, because I don't think the once-per-branch rule is otherwise readily knowable 14:37:57 <11Odds> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/747522859361894521/1548085210422190090/image.png?ex=6aa5c634&is=6aa474b4&hm=08f472aa0f72cc6a94ed7860ecc480b63fb28e6cf6903b0cdbe66862b0218832& 14:54:51 <02Darby> technically incorrect for delvers 14:55:16 <04dracoomega> Is it? We don't see it happen, but that might have been why 14:55:29 <02Darby> fair 14:56:01 <11Odds> Yeah either way didn't seem worth explaining in more detail for delvers 14:56:05 <04dracoomega> (I do kind of agree that the indicator needs some explanation for people to know what it means, but am a little torn about it looking so foregrounded. I am not sure what to do about that, though) 14:58:30 <11Odds> Yeah, I agree it's quite prominent for something people really only ever need to see once 15:29:23 Rather than do that, could the "once per branch" thing be explained at the time the "shaft" happens? Telling the player which branches are "safe" isn't critical as the character dump records use of shafts (although it doesn't distinguish deliberate use from accidental). 15:32:09 <11Odds> Well a few people who know the rule (including me) have wanted an easier way to see it in the game 15:34:31 <04dracoomega> Yeah, I've certainly no real objection on that front 15:34:58 <04dracoomega> (I don't personally think one needs to care about whether you're still shaftable except in a couple situations, but otherwise looking up the info is kind of slow) 15:35:23 <11Odds> Yeah for me it’s essentially only around d:8 15:35:40 <11Odds> (But I do always want to know there, if lair showed up early) 15:40:21 How does it affect you? I usually avoid exploring when injured anyway, and I'm not too sure what else you can do. 15:45:07 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.35-a0-1014-g0549b1e323 (34) 15:47:46 <11Odds> I go deeper in d pre-lair if I’ve been shafted 21:02:05 tstxdg (L17 GnIE) ASSERT(!in_bounds(you.pos()) || !cell_is_solid(you.pos()) || you.wizmode_teleported_into_rock) in 'movement.cc' at line 949 failed. (Shoals:4) 22:36:01 Unstable branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1014-g0549b1e323 (34) 22:59:51 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1014-g0549b1e323 23:39:11 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1014-g0549b1e323 (34) 23:56:33 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1014-g0549b1e323