00:00:03 you can fire through them yeah, idk about spells 00:00:04 Unstable branch on CRAWL.XTAHUA.COM updated to: 0.21-a0-55-gb612c23 (34) 00:00:40 though you can definitely BoD trhoughthe demons :P 00:35:09 gammafunk: good recognition of qw's tourney domination 00:37:04 deserves a mention for the most deaths to uniques too 00:37:44 that was mentioned! 00:38:25 musta missed it then 00:39:19 to be fair qw didn't have much competition this tourney without gw putting up impressive performances like http://dobrazupa.org/tournament/0.17/gkills.html 00:44:25 !gamesby gw t0.17 00:44:27 gw (t0.17) has played 5306 games, between 2015-11-06 23:47:33 and 2015-11-22 19:52:28, won 0, high score 96121, total score 6456364, total turns 15060654, play-time/day 18:20:25, total time 12d+23:47:14. 00:44:36 wow, and way less play time than qw 00:44:43 er, never mind 00:44:46 a bit less though 00:47:52 fantastic writeup, gammafunk 00:48:27 thx 00:50:24 yeah it was good even if it wasn't all about qw 00:51:29 I wanted to float an idea for the next tournament. The overview page could show a leaderboard for nemelex choice wins in addition to all the other stuff 00:51:55 it was a bit wordy and took a long time to write, but I think people might enjoy reading those extra details for who won what 00:52:16 I've always liked the nchoice contests and thought it might be something worth acknowledging more obviously 00:52:24 oh, yoou mean who has the most nchoice wins? 00:52:32 *you 00:52:52 yeah 00:53:08 well, the thing about those overview tables is they all tend to be things that are worth points 00:53:15 I think it might be fun to highlight/incentivize that contest 00:53:16 with the AC+EV thing being an exception 00:53:40 so those top 3 tables and such are showing who's in the running for or who has earned those points 00:53:44 gammafunk: I mean, "fastest win" etc are not worth points themselves 00:53:52 yeah that's true 00:54:22 also these players will have gotten 75 points per nchoice win, right? 00:54:23 but we don't specifically award points for the most nchoice wins, and those are also scaled points 00:54:28 or low XL win 00:54:51 being in "Leading Players" or "Leading Clans" isn't worth points, having the fastest win in turn count or realtime isn't worth extra points, having the top score of the tourney isn't worth extra points, first allrune win isn't worth extra points 00:54:53 oh that is clan points 00:54:58 longest streak isn't worth extra points 00:55:06 having an active streak isn't worth extra points 00:55:24 first allrune win is worth points 00:55:29 having a recent win isn't worth extra points, etc 00:55:33 oh, it is? 00:55:35 yes 00:55:37 same as first win 00:55:50 ah, you're right 00:56:42 in general I don't think there's anything wrong with adding more shiny tables of stuff to overview or to other pages 00:56:57 it's mainly just that someone needs to code it 00:57:41 -!- n1k is now known as n1 00:57:51 maybe we could put a divider for things that are not worth any kind of points at all, like the AC+EV thing and... 00:58:06 most deaths to uniques, I guess 00:58:18 no that is clan points! 00:59:00 dammit 00:59:13 wait 00:59:33 really if you think that stuff like "longest streak" is worth points then pretty much everything other than AC+EV is 00:59:39 most uniques killed is clan point, but there's no points for dying to a unique, is there? 00:59:56 no, just for being in top 3 01:00:00 god 01:00:46 that's a critical omission from the tournament summary 01:01:07 what is? 01:01:51 I look forward to the day when qw has 5 teammates and can really compete for clan ranking 01:02:25 50-20-10 clan points for the "Most Unique Deaths" trophy: Killed by the most distinct uniques. Ties are broken by who reaches that number first. 01:02:31 gammafunk: yes? 01:02:37 elliptic: are those summarized anywhere? 01:02:37 I told you, it is worth points 01:02:45 on the overview? 01:02:48 what do you mean 01:02:52 yeah, but I wasn't aware it was, and I'm not sure which clan won those points 01:03:15 gammafunk: it is the player killed by the most distinct uniques 01:03:39 that's how a lot of clan points work, they are individual things that we don't want to give real points for 01:03:49 oh, so just whichever clan they belonged to gets the points 01:03:51 so qw's clan got the 50 points 01:03:53 yes 01:04:49 ok, given the sort of ad-hoc way I summarize only the top 3 scoring clans, those points didn't end up being relevant, and if someone had gotten some of those points, I'd have seeen/commented on it 01:05:31 gammafunk: I see why this might be confusing if you just look at that line of the rules but the rules try to make it pretty clear that everything is individual unless stated otherwise 01:05:35 even if it gives clan points 01:05:55 see e.g. the last two lines of the "CLAN POINTS ONLY" section 01:06:12 right, just something I just need to keep in mind about those points 01:06:13 there are a lot of different points to keep track of 01:06:39 it's pretty much impossible for anyone on the top three teams to get that 50/20/10 for most deaths to uniques 01:07:21 since if they wasted that much time on 20 points then their team probably wouldn't have done well :P 01:07:51 true, however even top 3 teams often have at least one member who's not doing much and could do that if they wanted 01:07:55 but yeah, why would they really want to 01:08:25 the low XL win or rune points are another matter though 01:08:31 pekkekke of our team got bored of crawl shortly after the tournament started 01:09:05 too easy now that it has 2.30% winrate 01:09:27 mfw I'm not top 3 this tournament for rune fetched at lowest XL because I didn't get to run a su^sif 01:09:37 stupid streaking 01:10:41 you could just have streaked a L10 HESu 01:10:46 oh wait 01:10:56 I see the problem 01:11:27 frogs are the real high elves 01:11:29 !apt ba 01:11:37 Ba: Fighting: 2, Short: 1, Long: 2!, Axes: 1, Maces: 1, Polearms: 0, Staves: 1, Slings: 0, Bows: 0, Xbows: 0, Throw: 0, Armour: 2!, Dodge: 1, Stealth: 0, Shields: 1, UC: 1!, Splcast: 0, Conj: 1, Hexes: 1, Charms: 1, Summ: 2!, Nec: -1, Tloc: 1, Tmut: 1, Fire: 1, Ice: 2!, Air: 1, Earth: 0, Poison: 1, Inv: -1*, Evo: 1, Exp: 0, HP: 0, MP: 0 01:11:45 wow, 2, thought it was 1 01:12:04 if we remove felids at some point, can we rename Ba to frog elves? 01:13:02 it's a litttle too Tolkien, but I like it 01:13:23 high frogs? 01:13:53 grey frogs and they have a glamour tongue ability 01:16:00 Really harm your ally the orcs, water moccasins and adders? This attack would 01:16:00 place you under penance! 01:16:08 very important grammar bug 01:49:54 sludge frogs 01:58:15 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.21-a0-55-gb612c23 02:53:07 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.21-a0-55-gb612c23 03:12:36 Unstable branch on crawl.beRotato.org updated to: 0.21-a0-55-gb612c23 (34) 04:16:55 !message gammafunk Technically, the most rarely achieved banner was Spiteful II, only achieved by a single courageous player (ahem). Might be you're only counting tier 3 banners though; if so, just disregard this message ;) 04:16:56 You probably meant !tell, or possibly !messages. 04:17:07 !tell gammafunk Technically, the most rarely achieved banner was Spiteful II, only achieved by a single courageous player (ahem). Might be you're only counting tier 3 banners though; if so, just disregard this message ;) 04:17:09 kenran: OK, I'll let gammafunk know. 04:36:58 kenran: I actually saw that and kind of pondered it a bit, but I decided to lie 04:36:58 gammafunk: You have 2 messages. Use !messages to read them. 04:37:09 kenran: I actually saw that and kind of pondered it a bit, but I decided to lie 04:37:25 or at least omit that I was looking at tier III banners 04:37:37 I'm not sure how tier II spiteful relates to tier III, let me go look 04:37:40 maybe I fibbed too much 04:38:00 gammafunk: yeah I wasn't sure about that. Spiteful 2 and 3 are not really related. If anything, Spiteful 3 makes it more likely to not have Spiteful 2 04:38:11 ah, that's what I was afraid of 04:38:48 you can ignore most of the tier II and lower numbers since it's just "people who happened to not get tier II even though it's easy to get tier III if you got tier II" 04:38:56 but for some banners tier II and III are pretty distinct I guess 04:38:58 yeah. It's the other way around for Spiteful for some reason 04:39:04 And for some others 04:39:57 don't worry about it though: I didn't even know I had this banner, let alone that I was the only one, until my captain mentioned it. At the time, I had to switch because I had a really hard time in Z:5 and was heavily mutated without any options, so I switched to Zin and farmed the abyss for piety :D 04:40:21 We can all blame this on Lasty 04:41:19 Oh wait, I misread Spiteful III. Actually, it IS harder that II. 04:42:29 hey devs why is there a tarantella wandering around d:2 04:42:30 Maybe one should just add the requirement "become the champion of a different god" to Spiteful III? 04:44:24 okay it's a shapeshifter as I suspected but why is there a shapeshifter on d:2 :P 04:48:28 can't find any suspicious vaults on the level so I suppose it's probably just an extraordinarily unlucky OOD spawn 04:51:20 yeah, what's the min spawn on those? 04:51:36 { 13, 23, 675, SEMI, MONS_SHAPESHIFTER }, 04:52:02 hrm, that's odd then 04:52:12 it would have to be an 8 or 9 I guess 04:52:27 max should be 7 for a level monster ood spawn 04:52:32 ??8 04:52:32 8[1/2]: This is either a {statue} or a {golem}. It's either totally harmless or an electric golem. 04:52:35 ??8[2 04:52:35 8[2/2]: Is also a marker for extremely out of depth (depth*2+4 depth!) monsters in vaults; both traditional and valued by most devs. Good results: d:4 wolf spiders, d:5 centaur warriors, d:6 fire crabs, d:9 sphinxes, d:10 fire giants, d:11 liches. 04:52:42 !lm minmay 04:52:43 34997. [2017-06-14 08:46:06] minmay the Conjurer (L6 KoCj) killed Natasha on turn 4229. (D:3) 04:52:45 It probably generated after the initial level generation 04:52:51 even an 8 shouldn't spawn that 04:53:14 !lm minmay -1 04:53:15 still extremely unlikely as I hadn't spent thousands of turns on D:2, but across enough millions of games it'll happen sooner or later 04:53:15 34997. [2017-06-14 08:46:06] minmay the Conjurer (L6 KoCj) killed Natasha on turn 4229. (D:3) 04:53:17 and sorry, max would be 6 for normal level, it's +5 depth at max 04:53:41 well, depend on how long you were on the level 04:54:21 it might not be possible for it to spawn through the ood timer either, the depth gets scaled based on turns 04:54:21 so yeah I'm not sure how that generated 04:54:27 no it is absolutely possible, just a really, really, really low chance 04:54:55 big fan of the really really small chance of something absolutely terrible happening 04:54:55 i didn't count the exact turns when i saw it but it's possible after only like 200 turns on D:2, iirc 04:55:15 right, but I think there's just a cap on the depth it can roll that wouldn't put it close at all to 13 04:55:24 maybe I need to look at that code again 04:55:28 regular super ood spawns don't bother me, I just worried that there was a vault accident or something 04:55:50 I guess I should go back and die to it to check but I kinda want to oneandwin this 04:57:16 !source mon-place.cc:281 04:57:17 https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/mon-place.cc#L281 04:57:20 for the chance, but 04:58:40 yeah this is just doing that fuzz for up to +5 depth 04:58:53 oh does this multiple passes or something 04:59:59 oh see, nm 05:00:06 on line 307 05:00:54 yeah it shouldn't have triggered that unless you were only the level for more than 1400 - 234 turns 05:01:17 entirely possible that I was a hair over that 05:01:25 s/only/on/ 05:02:02 if you see my wand vault, it may have a wand of polymorph 05:02:18 so try to generate that to defeat the shapeshifter 11:19:58 -!- Anothervack is now known as Avack 11:25:30 it looks to me like the new lightning rod only starts recharging if you completely empty it, right? that seems weird and bad 11:27:03 if it's intended, it's not explained clearly 12:18:38 Is anyone of you using vim with the YouCompleteMe plugin for crawl development by chance? 12:19:45 <|amethyst> I use omnicppcomplete + ctags 12:23:51 Ahh too bad. YCM needs a particular configuration file that I got to work "somewhat", but not perfectly yet. 12:24:22 I was hoping someone had used it, but nevermind then. Or perhaps someone else will speak up later :) 13:04:13 Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.21-a0-55-gb612c23 (34) 13:43:07 03Elan Morin Tedronai02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/548 * 0.21-a0-52-g0d4208e: Trog's Sanctum tweaks. 10(18 minutes ago, 1 file, 17+ 19-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/0d4208e71a95 14:46:25 I finally got crawl debug-ready! I thought I'd try out a little something and found the following minor Mantis issue: https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=11048 14:47:42 Looking through the code in player-equip.cc, I don't really understand what the behaviour should be 14:50:51 It seems to me like it's generally okay/wanted that you still get a message saying "You feel resistant to ..." (though I don't know why it says 'more resistant' for rN, but just 'resistant' for MR) even if you have max in that res 14:54:40 Who decides what the final behaviour in such cases should be? If someone were to change the rPois behaviour as written, one would surely have to make the other resistances stop giving messages if capped as well. 14:55:21 And one last thing: Is there a special reason why armour ego resistances have these messages while e.g. rings don't? 14:56:53 rings are expected to do something, armours are generally expected to just be armour? 14:57:28 geekosaur: ah you're right, that makes all the sense :D there just are no rings without an ego. 14:59:31 right, the ego's the whole point of a ring 16:07:47 ??magic_regeneration 16:07:48 amulet of magic regeneration[1/1]: Increases MP regeneration by 50% of {base MP regeneration}. Has a warm-up time so you can't swap to it in a pinch. 16:08:59 !learn edit amulet_of_magic_regeneration s/$/ In trunk gives 0.25 mana per turn; this is an increase when your maxmp is 35 or less./ 16:09:00 amulet of magic regeneration[1/1]: Increases MP regeneration by 50% of {base MP regeneration}. Has a warm-up time so you can't swap to it in a pinch. In trunk gives 0.25 mana per turn; this is an increase when your maxmp is 35 or less. 16:09:37 !learn edit amulet_of_magic_regeneration s/turn;/turn instead;/ 16:09:38 amulet of magic regeneration[1/1]: Increases MP regeneration by 50% of {base MP regeneration}. Has a warm-up time so you can't swap to it in a pinch. In trunk gives 0.25 mana per turn instead; this is an increase when your maxmp is 35 or less. 16:09:57 ??mp 16:09:58 mp[1/3]: Cast spells with this. MP = min(23, XL) + skill + min(4, min(XL, skill) / 2), where skill = max(Spellcasting, Evo/2, Invo/2). Basically, MP = XL + skill, except that the last 4 XL's mp points effectively get distributed over the first 8 XL, but only if you have matching quantities of skill. 16:10:02 ??mp[2 16:10:03 mp[2/3]: Mp aptitude gives a flat +aptitude mp to your base mp -- e.g. +1 aptitude = +1 total mp. +Mp mutations and racial mutations are added after XL and skill are calculated. +mp items are added last. 16:10:08 ??mp[3 16:10:09 mp[3/3]: You gain maxmp + 14 mp every 200 turns. 16:10:31 I'd like to make a mantis account but it seems like the captcha system is broken, it doesn't want to accept the "correct" answer I'm giving it ;( 16:12:12 !learn edit mp[3 s/$/ Put another way, you gain 7/100ths of an mp plus 1/100th of an mp per 2 maxmp per turn. You reach 0.5 mp regenerated per turn at 86 maxmp./ 16:12:13 Syntax is: !learn edit TERM[NUM] s/REGEX/REPLACE/opts 16:12:25 !learn edit mp[3 s|$| Put another way, you gain 7/100ths of an mp plus 1/100th of an mp per 2 maxmp per turn. You reach 0.5 mp regenerated per turn at 86 maxmp.| 16:12:26 mp[3/3]: You gain maxmp + 14 mp every 200 turns. Put another way, you gain 7/100ths of an mp plus 1/100th of an mp per 2 maxmp per turn. You reach 0.5 mp regenerated per turn at 86 maxmp. 16:12:36 iirc that is known and we're waiting on n*pkin 16:16:16 ah ok, great thanks! 16:29:32 maybe you're a robot 16:45:36 amalloy: but how would one ever know?? 16:54:39 !messages 16:54:40 No messages for TZer0. 16:59:27 !tell |amethyst any idea why I'm getting messages from people about 0.20 not being counted in stats? 16:59:28 TZer0: OK, I'll let |amethyst know. 18:02:25 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.21-a0-55-gb612c23 (34) 18:43:32 -!- ProzacElf_ is now known as ProzacElf 19:44:39 TZer0: If by stats you mean the CAO pages, we haven't added CUE to those yet, I think |amethyst was waiting until 0.20 landed on CDO 19:46:09 Napkin: Will you be able to add 0.20 to CDO at some point? 20:46:31 Sojobo waves her feathered arms in wide circles. 20:46:41 FR: have an adjective for other monsters' arms too 20:46:45 "The titan waves its hairy arms in wide circles" 20:48:00 actual FR: generate troves much earlier, like, pre-lair, so that players are more likely to save items up for the trove, instead of already having them when they find the trove 20:49:15 when a trove appears in depths i almost always either already have the items for it, or will win before enough of those items generate 21:05:18 minmay: remind me, what's your take on amulet of magic regeneration? IIRC it's that it's not good. If so, is that because of the power level or the basic premise? 21:07:32 Lasty: it's excellent in early D but after that I don't think MP regeneration matters much because max MP values are already higher than needed 21:09:08 it is still convenient all game, of course, but not powerful IMO 21:09:18 ah, right. Could you elaborate a little on that latter point? In the late game is MP regen already high enough, or is the base mana pool high enough on a per-encounter basis that regen doesn't matter, or something else? 21:09:44 the latter 21:09:46 i read that to mean the latter 21:12:41 I suppose that's usually my experience too, and having high magic regen mostly just allows me to avoid resting as much. 21:13:01 which in turn implies that amulet of magic regen could never be a competitive later-game amulet 21:16:10 you could combine it with regen amulet, which would make it more competitive 21:16:32 that'd be really good in the early game 21:16:34 but it wouldn't really change the basic problem 21:16:59 gammafunk: true 21:17:14 well I don't think regen amulet is anything incredible in early game; I guess it's better there than it is later, but it's not very strong 21:17:31 you could give it a spellpower boost. There are already a lot of things that do that, but the same could be said for slaying and +dam effects. 21:18:00 seems kind of bad, it's stepping on archmagi 21:18:02 you could remove rings of wiz and merge the effect into it 21:18:35 regen amulet seems to mainly benefit speed runs 21:18:36 yeah, you could do something like that I guess, but...maybe just doubling up effects is just a sign of a poor design 21:18:40 but it helps early when you need to pillar dance 21:18:49 then you can also give it a -int penalty on removal and finally stop players from swapping wiz 21:18:55 gammafunk: so are ring of fire/ring of ice/enhancer staves; gloves of archery and slaying artefacts step on slaying rings 21:19:30 I wouldn't mind removing rings of wiz 21:19:39 Lasty: well fire/ice aren't universal enchancers, gloves of archery should be removed IMO, and as for slaying artefacts, not sure what you mean 21:20:06 agred re: archery 21:20:11 *agreed 21:20:27 archmagic is literally an ego that's a universal spell enhancer; it's true that it wouldn't be swappable like the amulet would, but I'm not really sure that's an interesting thing 21:20:53 rip popehat 21:21:20 as far as slaying artefacts go, what I mean is this: the main source of bonus slaying is rings of slaying, but also randarts with slaying are a thing. You were saying the main source of spellpower boosts is Archmagi, but there aren't +archmagi randarts 21:21:51 lasty: +10 int can still generate, right 21:21:55 on randarts 21:21:55 CanOfWorms: true 21:22:16 i got +10 str recently 21:22:20 so i'm sure int will too 21:22:26 If you consider +int to be an archmagi effect, then yeah, lots more stuff has it. Similarly str and +slaying 21:23:09 randarts with slaying aren't a normal class of item, you're talking about adding this to normal (and randart) amulets 21:23:30 randarts also tend to present more of a decision on-averages since most randarts are still bad 21:23:50 a mundane item like amulet of regen+archagi won't ever be anything other than that 21:23:57 I guess about rings of int you have a point there though 21:24:28 they're just pretty uncommon to generate with enough int to compare well to archmagi 21:25:02 anyhow, just a hot take 21:25:15 spicy memes etc 21:25:41 at least I believe that's the language I should use to appear like a hip coolplayer 21:27:14 You could "easily" make amulet of regeneration competitive late-game by making the regeneration bonus scale with your max HP, instead of being flat 21:27:49 <3 bad randarts 21:28:02 Not sure you would really want to do that though since it's another buff to late game characters 21:28:39 but an amulet of, say, +2% of your max hp per turn could plausibly compete with spirit etc. 21:29:30 That solution isn't extendable to MPRegen anyway though, since unlike HP there is only so much MP you can use in one turn (unless you have spirit, but then it's just the same as HP regen) 21:29:52 gammafunk: not that I'm trying to imply it was a good idea, just that I'm not sure it makes sense to put archmagi in a tower, so to speak 21:29:54 ugh i hate that i have to type "mpreg" to type "MPRegen" 21:30:24 heh 21:30:39 archmagi is kind of a god tier ego btw, only comparable armour egos are spirit shield and running 21:31:05 IIRC it's fairly rare 21:31:36 minmay: does that mean that enhancer staves are also god-tier, or does the penalty of unwielding a good weapon subvert that? 21:31:53 yes 21:32:44 enhancers are extremely good, and having to spent 5 aut to switch to a real weapon if you want to melee something, or to take off your ring of ice against a lindwurm, doesn't really change that 21:32:47 spend* 21:33:50 While we're discussing design, what's everyone's current take on GDR aka GMDR? I'm a fan of the idea of killing it entirely. 21:34:00 me 2 21:34:25 yeah, it's worth at least testing to removal to see if it actually impacts the game 21:34:34 it would be cool, but I wouldn't want it to feel like heavy armour was bad; simple removal wouldn't be a good replacement 21:35:03 Do you think removing GMDR would make heavy armor bad? 21:35:05 My intuition is that it would not, but I could be wrong. 21:35:46 it would make meleeing bad a lot more than it would make heavy armour bad 21:36:06 since gdr only matters if you're next to things 21:36:13 well, I suppose that's true; it would also affect those lighter armours 21:36:21 but yeah I think it would make melee feel a lot worse certainly 21:36:49 i assume it would come with a change to armour AC values or the mechanics of AC in general in order to compensate for that 21:37:20 alternatively you could nerf monster melee damage across the board 21:37:31 I already feel like most monster melee damage is low 21:38:12 -!- jeefus is now known as jefus 21:38:33 removing GDR effectively makes monster melee damage significantly higher 21:38:44 yeah, I kind of like that idea. 21:39:03 Why do you think that would be fun? 21:39:11 gammafunk: because I like scary monsters 21:39:16 Yes, but why 21:39:23 I do too but the majority of monsters in crawl are speed 10 21:39:29 as are the majority of players 21:39:58 My point is that it's going to make luring mosters and stair dancing and all those others things become much more pervasive in "casual" play 21:40:01 so when I find an ogre I don't go "oh shit I need to deal with ogre melee damage", I kite it 21:40:03 gammafunk: I like challenge, and monsters that pose a meaningful chance of dealing significant damage under some circumstances are more challenging. 21:40:29 gammafunk: following that argument to its conclusion would suggestion that we should make crawl easier to reduce the problem of luring 21:40:31 I don't like challenges that are tedious to solve, is my point 21:40:59 Seems like that implies that addressing luring is the right answer, not limiting increases to challenge 21:41:34 Well the proposal was not "remove GDR And rework monster AI and/or dungeon/monster dynamics" 21:41:44 it was just to simply remove GDR 21:42:31 gammafunk: sure, but I'd argue that you're the one who pulled luring into this. It's a known issue that in crawl all difficulty can be mitigated by luring. I don't think that's a good reason to avoid adding difficulty. 21:42:52 I don't think removing GDR would represent much of an increase in challenge since it mostly only affects melee characters, and the best characters are summoners and bow users, not melee characters 21:43:23 I just want it gone because it's weird :P 21:44:04 I don't think it would radically increase challenge either -- it already gets ignored on the majority of really threatening attacks anyway 21:44:32 but spiders and bees would be scarier 21:44:40 for some characters 21:44:50 Lasty: I don't think turning random knobs to add difficulty is going to be a good general approach to increasing difficulty; it just needs to be done gradually 21:45:25 man I wasn't even done telling you that enhancers are OP 21:45:30 Crawl has a lot of things you should do a lot more of to be optimal but in practice you only have to a reasonably limited degree 21:45:34 gammafunk: I don't want to remove GDR to add difficulty, but I think increased difficulty isn't a bad side-effect of removing it 21:45:51 minmay: haha, fair enough, let's go back to talking about that 21:46:01 Lasty: Yeah I think simply making melee worse is probably not a reasonable approach here 21:46:44 it's basically +20 to +30 spell power per enhancer 21:50:02 minmay: how would you say its OPness compares to +slaying? 21:51:26 Lasty: Final thought about big difficulty increases (especially ones skewed towards certain types of characters) is that crawl has too many fights, too many levels, and levels that are too large. So if you make the game more difficult in a way that impacts every fight, you increase tedium a ton, potentially, if you don't make other changes to address those things. 21:51:29 let's say you have 70 spell power without a ring of fire. putting on a ring of fire takes your fireball damage from 3d15 to 3d18.33. if you added a "ring of +20% melee damage" the playerbase would explode 21:52:10 like, explode into chunks? 21:52:11 +6 slaying on d:3 is bigger than that obviously but later on it sure isn't 21:52:32 gammafunk: would it be fair to say that what you're saying is that the current balance of crawl works pretty well, but that until tedium as a strategy in crawl is fixed, the balance implications of large-scale changes are dangerous? 21:54:30 +6 slaying is +20% or more damage for a fair chunk of the game. That said, +6 slaying spawns a lot less often than an enhancer does, and two +6 slaying instances spawn way less than two enhancers do. 21:55:21 I guess it'd be unfair to say that it works pretty well, because crawl isn't really well balanced (it's too easy, which is why you and others would like to make it more meaningfully difficult), but yeah it is fun to play despite the amount of tedium currently in it (tedium both from either using optimal tactics and from it being too much of a victory parade) 21:56:09 But if most fights in crawl feel like dealing with an Ogre on D:4 and the number of fights in the game stays at current levels, I'm not going to enjoy crawl much 21:56:46 *if crawl is changed so most fights feel like I'm dealing with an Ogre on D:4 21:57:11 That's fair; I probably wouldn't enjoy that either. But I would enjoy it if more floors had the equivalent of at least one D:4 ogre. 21:57:41 Yeah 21:57:41 And by that, I mean a d:4 ogre for a non-book background, since most book backgrounds just nuke it without trouble 21:57:55 It sounds like you're both complaining about speed 10 melee monsters in different ways 21:57:59 well, yeah, the devs added poisonous vapours, so spells are OP now 21:58:18 minmay: yup. 21:58:18 p.s. these are some good peanuts over here in the gallery 21:58:37 I only play Nagas, so I don't know what you mean 21:58:42 I'm with dpeg in thinking that our highest priority as devs should be finding a way to make luring less optimal 21:59:15 not that I think that's trivial 22:00:01 Your and dpegs attempts to become the most reviled devs in all online communities fills me with inspiration 22:00:11 you know it 22:00:23 just remember, no one likes this branch. Just stop. 22:00:42 Can we, like, vote him off the dev team? It should be democratic 22:01:35 minmay: Would speed 12 monster base speed just fix a lot of crawl problems? 22:02:07 or something like that, I guess; I've never thought about what would be a good base speed if monsters were faster than the player 22:02:57 I'd say yes 22:03:08 it would probably be better than status quo 22:03:19 11 doesn't make much difference i don't think. unless you're running from an ugly thing and you have to run a long way with no blink/tele 22:03:31 It solves luring by giving it a cost, but you'd want to lure pretty much every encounter 22:03:39 so maybe it doesn't solve it really 22:04:22 Faster monsters aren't going to get rid of luring but even speed 11 would almost completely kill "pillar dancing" 22:04:34 it'd remain for like, regenerating MP on D:1 and be gone after that 22:04:47 I guess you could combine speed 12 monster + one-way stairs 22:04:56 I think it's really hard to solve luring without making crawl harder if you lure and keep it at the current difficulty if you don't 22:05:21 I certainly think speed 11 or 12 ogres would be far better and more interesting monsters 22:06:10 because in situations where it is generally harder, luring is still a good way to reduce relative difficulty 22:06:10 Lasty: btw, I don't know if you know who emtedronai is (the streak player), but he made this vault: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/205316046230388737/324583262246797313/unknown.png 22:07:08 gammafunk: lol, that is some mean boobytrap 22:07:48 gammafunk: I don't know if you saw it, but I deliberately took a streaking char in the t into your zot transporter vault, knowing it would be nasty 22:08:04 which one? there are a bunch of mine that can place there 22:08:17 but thanks all the same, I'd only be happier if you died in it 22:08:26 oh, uh, the one with a checkerboard pattern of tiles and walls 22:08:37 sounds the a variant of gammafunk_the_bubble 22:09:02 has a bunch of subvault variants; that was the first general transporter vault I made 22:09:11 lol 22:09:12 nice vault 22:09:17 from dude 22:10:10 ProzacElf: congrats on your 8th place btw 22:10:12 http://dobrazupa.org/tournament/0.17/gkills.html 22:10:26 elliptic was talking about 0.17 when gw was the gkill king, and I saw that 22:16:02 amulet question: is there any discussion about changing, replacing, or just removing amulet of gourmand? 22:16:32 IIRC gammafunk was the guy who objected to its removal 22:17:25 that does come up a lot; I use it sometimes just for convenience; it's sort of cool that it can exist for the rare char that really burns through tons of food (so that they can make a char that does this) 22:17:35 but yeah don't ask me for amazing justifications for its existance 22:17:39 I'll become very defensive 22:18:35 🔪🍔 22:18:50 imagine I'm the hamburger and you're coming to remove my gourmand amulet 22:20:58 I can't really imagine what you'd replace it with that would be more interesting; we do already have staff of energy to remove spell hunger, so even with gourmand gone, spell-hunger heavy chars have something they can use that's not only training more spellcasting 22:21:28 rod hunger is gone, even old sif channel is gone 22:22:03 rip hunger 22:24:31 the only character I can think of that would want gourmand is someone who rushed a level 9 spell before having the spellcasting/int to support actually using it 22:24:54 and didn't find a staff of energy 22:25:57 I do that often because I find it fun. It is totally doable w/o staff of energy or even picking up jellies/fruit 22:26:39 it also encourages constantly shoving corpses into your mouth to top off to engorged so that the effect isn't wasted when you actually need it 22:32:06 oh 22:32:06 haha 22:32:08 yeah 22:32:13 i was proud of that 22:32:57 Proud of stuffing your face with corpses? You are a true American! 22:33:09 i meant the 8th place on gkills in 0.17 22:33:23 although if you're using berserk way too much "gourmand is handy too 22:36:13 the only character I can think of that would want gourmand is someone who rushed a level 9 spell before having the spellcasting/int to support actually using it 22:36:19 even with 0 spellcasting a level 9 spell is only 1000 hunger 22:36:55 so gourmand doesn't even help much with that unless you care about finishing with 50 bread rations instead of 30 22:37:37 also the interaction between gourmand and vampiric weapons is pretty bad 22:37:47 ah yeah 22:37:55 also not being able to eat mutagenic chunks while engorged sucks 22:37:55 i've used gourmand to make vamp swapping easier 22:38:39 oh yeah, I forgot about mutagenic chunks/engorged as well, it's awful to carry a hunger inducing item around to burn off engorged to eat the purple 22:39:07 Floodkiller: finally, a use for glaciate 22:41:27 on the topic of amulets: what would be the general opinion on removing equip/unequip effects for amulets and making all amulets fragile instead? 22:43:12 sounds like I'd be carrying around a lot of unidentified amulets for most of the game 22:43:29 and dragging duplicate amulets out of portal vaults etc 22:44:17 ^ 22:44:18 fragile makes more sense on items that won't have duplicates, like artefacts 22:51:02 fair on the duplicates issue. I mainly ask because it would open room for more dramatic amulet changes when not having to worry about swapping as much 22:54:23 gammafunk: I've concluded the shapeshifter didn't come from a vault so it was just really bad luck