03:24:15 <12g​e0ff> When playing on CUE, there's a visible difference in responsiveness/lag depending on the number of spectators in other games. 03:24:34 <12g​e0ff> And the lag is not just higher, it jumps from no delay to a 1 sec delay all the time. Maybe it's something CUE-specific, as I haven't noticed this on CXC and CDI, but I suspect there's some locking/waiting for response (?) going on when the server sends webchat messages to spectators. 03:35:00 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-5261-gd9800d219b 06:51:58 <04d​racoomega> @hellmonk So, I looked over the Death ego PR. In terms of bugs or implementation issues, it doesn't actually check rN at all (and thus does full damage to nonliving and so on). This wants to be checked before damage is applied. I was a little uncertain about it working with Exegesis-cast spells, since I know several other things don't, but actually it turns out we're just plain inconsistent about this and it's possible the issue 06:51:58 is that some of the things that don't work with Exegesis ought to. (It currently doesn't trigger Spellmotor, Spellclaws, Sap Magic (and also 2 upcoming talisman things), but does trigger Demonic Magic, Ephemeral Shield, and Battlesphere.) Other than that, it looks fine to me. However, on a power level front, I actually think it's quite weak. The average damage per spell cast is pretty low in general, but then when you factor in it only working 06:51:59 against a single melee-range enemy, the realistic effectiveness of gets even worse. 06:51:59 <04d​racoomega> Current average damage (accounting for proc chance) per spell level is as follows (with healing being half that, of course): Lv 1 1.43 Lv 2 2.81 Lv 3 4.33 Lv 4 5.95 Lv 5 7.64 Lv 6 9.38 Lv 7 11.15 Lv 8 12.96 Lv 9 14.8 Thing is, a bunch of necromancy spells aren't spells that you cast repeatedly (or even can cast repeatedly), and of those, many of them aren't things you want to wait until monsters are in melee range to 06:52:00 cast. Like, the payoff of extra damage for waiting until melee range to cast Haunt or Rimeblight or Curse of Agony just isn't going to exceed the value of getting those spells out a bunch of turns earlier, even on the sort of character who wants to be wearing plate armour of death (and thus actually wading into melee themselves). I suspect most spellcasts won't even have a valid target in range to proc on. Keep in mind, this is a somewhat niche ego 06:52:00 that is trying to encourage people to gear in a way they otherwise wouldn't. While the wizardry is strong, I doubt it even fully counterbalances the armour's weight in most cases, so we ought to assume any character wearing it could be casting just as good (or better) necromancy without it. So why are they chosing to wear it? The other benefit needs to be clearly attractive, imo. I do like emphasising this as an ego of someone who wants to be doing 06:52:01 'frontline' necromancy, though, so rather than making the range on the lifesteal much longer, I think I kind of lean towards making it AoE. (And maybe extending it to range 2, so that it includes polearm melee range.). This makes there be a considerably multiplied value for casting while 'in the thick of it' and synergizes better with being the kind of armour used by someone who wants to get in the thick of it. Possibly still warrants increasing the 06:52:01 damage slightly (but maybe reduce the healing fraction a little?) 06:56:36 <04d​racoomega> (This feels like the sort of item that will always be a slightly uphill battle to get people using, and so I think it's better to err on the side of 'maybe a little too good' than being too conservative.) 08:11:02 <08o​____0> The way I thought of it was getting a heal wounds potion more or less every fight if you spend ~20mp (although necromancy spells are often front loaded so that healing might go to waste) 08:11:25 <08o​____0> uuuugh hp 08:12:02 <08o​____0> I think I did the math wrong though 08:18:17 <04d​racoomega> Yes, I think that a majority of spellcasts won't have anything in range to drain at present (and some of those that do won't have much to heal). I do respect the risk of runaway vampirism (and actually think Majin Bo is wildly too strong, tbh >.>), but I feel like all of the stipulations on this effect make that much less concerning to me. 08:19:17 <08o​____0> I guess for me "cast necromancy spells and have more ac" is already exciting haha but it's rare anyway 08:20:11 <08o​____0> Does act->hurt with BEAM_VAMPIRIC_DRAINING really bypass the rN checks? 08:20:22 <04d​racoomega> Hurt doesn't modify things by resistances at all 08:20:29 <04d​racoomega> That has to be done first 08:20:39 <08o​____0> ah ok! 08:20:41 <04d​racoomega> (The beam parameter there only does a couple of minor things) 08:23:02 <04d​racoomega> (You often want to calculate immunity and such before printing any messages, which means before actually dealing damage) 09:25:12 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1016-gad7b5dbda5: Fix typos. 10(8 minutes ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/ad7b5dbda545 09:32:43 03Brian Power02 {dolorous} 07* 0.35-a0-1017-gf0ccbfa403: Externalise remaining hint text 10(3 days ago, 2 files, 777+ 611-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/f0ccbfa403f2 09:32:43 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1018-g085132b070: Remove obsolete Yredelemnul piety hint. 10(23 hours ago, 2 files, 0+ 8-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/085132b070bd 09:38:46 04Build failed for 08master @ ad7b5dbd 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/34768513439 09:44:08 04Build failed for 08master @ 085132b0 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/34768896627 10:29:29 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1019-gcec93602c6: Remove bullseye target from pacified monsters. 10(22 minutes ago, 1 file, 3+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/cec93602c640 10:29:29 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1020-gd1dc0648de: Remove a redundantly set parameter. 10(8 minutes ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/d1dc0648de16 10:33:51 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1021-ga55e7c0f3b: Checkwhite. 10(85 seconds ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/a55e7c0f3b0a 10:33:54 <09h​ellmonk> alright, I'll fix those bugs adjust numbers and merge today 10:42:46 04Build failed for 08master @ d1dc0648 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/34771695524 10:49:47 04Build failed for 08master @ a55e7c0f 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/34771921261 11:19:28 <06d​olorous_84348> Aside from the checkwhite , the build failures seem to be because git source downloads are failing on the Macs right now for whatever reason. 15:04:44 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1022-gbd47c4f06c: Make newly enchanted wpns/armour use proper tiles 10(42 minutes ago, 1 file, 4+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/bd47c4f06cc3 15:06:06 <06r​egret-⸸nde※> ...Didn't this get brought up previously as something we didn't want to do?.... >_> 15:09:13 <06d​olorous_84348> Going through old PRs, and I figured since it was already done for starting equipment, it would at least be consistent. (If this were tagged as something unwanted, it would be helpful.) 15:13:07 <04d​racoomega> (I think I'd thought it was closed, actually, but I guess we only meant to.) I felt on the fence about whether scrolls should ever actually change the appearance of items after the fact, like boots become an entirely different shape of boot. 15:17:57 <06d​olorous_84348> Changing appearance would also depend on how such enchantment works, but trying to specify that in-game sounds like the kind of lore that isn't useful for what little story Crawl has. Unless there's going to be a unique banished to the Dungeon for selling substandard enchantment scrolls that only worked part of the time, or something. 15:19:20 <06d​olorous_84348> (Which might be too meta, considering that's how such scrolls used to work in the old days the more enchanted the item got, but I don't know.) 15:24:17 <04d​racoomega> I meant that said PR does make scrolls abruptly change the appearance of items the player has potentially been using for a while, and I kind of didn't think it should. It feels jarring to me. (I suppose someone else can chime in with whether or not they agree, I guess.) 15:26:22 <06d​olorous_84348> Having the appearance not change feels jarring to me because it doesn't match anything else. Although maybe if there were hypothetical tiles used only for player items that were mundane and then enchanted that looked like a runed/glowing version of the numdane version, it would be less jarring, but making new tiles for just that circumstance is of course more work. 15:32:35 <06d​olorous_84348> While I'm looking at old PRs, #5026 is a very small change that makes sense to me, but it's been open for longer than #5177 was and, aside from being tagged with "text," hasn't had any response. 15:32:44 <06d​olorous_84348> !issue 5026 15:32:46 <04C​erebot> https://github.com/crawl/crawl/issues/5026 15:33:03 <06d​olorous_84348> That was supposed to be the PR. 15:33:11 <06d​olorous_84348> https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5026 15:38:01 <04d​racoomega> (I used 'was' because the implication in this case is that it always was an artefact and that this was just less obvious until you took a closer look at it.) 15:38:15 <04d​racoomega> I don't think 'is' is actually incorrect either, of course. 15:40:06 <06d​olorous_84348> Okay. 15:41:52 <06d​olorous_84348> Is the change something you feel strongly enough about to really object to? 15:44:07 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.35-a0-1021-ga55e7c0f3b (34) 15:45:12 <02D​arby> I don't strongly object one way or the other, but my feeling about appearances changing when enchanted depends on the tile. for the tiles that are just the same but runed and/or glowy, it feels more natural for newly enchanted weapons to also get the enchanted tile rather than look inexplicably mundane. for the tiles that are a totally different design, the change feels weird. overall, it cancels out to me, so I can go either way. 15:48:39 <04d​racoomega> Yes, it's the abundance of 'completely different shape' tiles we have in multiple cases that make it feel weird to me. (Though I can't deny that some pat of that may simply be being used to it working this way for decades now.) 15:49:05 <02D​arby> (magic is magic, of course: there's equal argument that a magic item can look mundane, and that a scroll of enchantment can change the design of items, because magic) 15:49:43 <06r​egret-⸸nde※> I'm not super enthusiastic about this without a whole bunch of effort to make a fair amount more new tiles for mildly-glowy-or-runed-or-highlight-trim versions of what previously exists and a bunch more code to make those edits match up. 15:49:44 <04d​racoomega> eg: The first one here becoming the second. (Which was actually the first thing that happened when I looked at said commit myself) 15:49:44 <04d​racoomega> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/747522859361894521/1548828052342181938/helmet1.png?ex=6aa87a07&is=6aa72887&hm=6da5e1506c6453d02d37de42930ddf033509e3cc0cadf8abf7c81b13a47b77e6& 15:49:45 <04d​racoomega> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/747522859361894521/1548828052669075516/helmet_ego2.png?ex=6aa87a07&is=6aa72887&hm=733deae0cb9e60f7a9d5eb09934bdb0c4fad37411470322169b27ef2a731d7ec& 15:50:48 <06r​egret-⸸nde※> (It'd be quite a bit of effort, and the deadline's looming in for this version while I'm trying to handle lots of other tiles as is....) 15:53:15 <02D​arby> from a gameplay perspective, the argument is between recording that the tile was found mundane and player-enchanted, vs the tile indicator directly matching the item's expected functionality 16:01:43 <06d​olorous_84348> Since you don't think it's actually incorrect, I'm going with it for now. Maybe there's a way to phrase it without the tense change that doesn't feel overly wordy and keeps your intended meaning, but I can't think of one at the moment. 16:02:34 03unutbu02 {dolorous} 07* 0.35-a0-1023-g60fb245937: fix tense 10(8 months ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/60fb245937e1 16:04:45 <06d​olorous_84348> (As for tiles, I'd help more with them if I could actually draw decently.) 16:06:03 <06d​olorous_84348> (And learning how to do that is something I'd get to if I didn't have so much else to worry about. If that changes, you'll know.) 16:26:26 <06r​egret-⸸nde※> I can try to slowly address these tile needs over time , but with the many other small equipment tile inconsistencies present that haven't gotten almost any prior complaints for most of Crawl's history, plus the current other tile pressures for the last few features, it's going to be a fairly low priority and a lot to suddenly shove into this version. 19:44:16 03hellmonk02 07[deathego2] * 0.35-a0-1016-g3720600dc9: Adjust 10(5 minutes ago, 2 files, 7+ 9-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/3720600dc942 19:44:16 Branch pull/5412 updated to be equal with deathego2: 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/5412 20:04:55 04Build failed for 08deathego2 @ 3720600d 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/34800161225 20:29:14 03Hellmonk02 {GitHub} 07* 0.35-a0-1024-g4c0211ee5b: Rework death ego (#5412) 10(57 seconds ago, 3 files, 52+ 15-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/4c0211ee5b55 20:49:32 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1025-g84fcfc0e36: Add a few more gizmo adjectives. 10(3 minutes ago, 1 file, 6+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/84fcfc0e361a 21:16:15 03dolorous02 07* 0.35-a0-1026-g18991dcc64: Add another adjective to gizmos; fix a comment. 10(3 minutes ago, 1 file, 3+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/18991dcc643e 21:27:26 04Build failed for 08master @ 18991dcc 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/34805390455 22:37:06 Unstable branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1026-g18991dcc64 (34) 23:02:47 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1026-g18991dcc64 23:41:09 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1026-g18991dcc64 (34) 23:58:37 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.35-a0-1026-g18991dcc64