02:47:05 <Gretell> Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.24-a0-125-gdf02491
03:31:16 <Kelbell> Fork (bcrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.23-a0-1761-ge05933ae44
05:06:25 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_
05:29:24 <Gretell> stickyfingers (L22 TrFE) Crash caused by signal #6: Aborted (Depths:3)
08:50:53 -!- TAS-2012v is now known as TAS_2012v
12:41:41 -!- _krator44 is now known as krator44
13:01:07 <advil> !crashlog stickyfingers
13:01:18 <Sequell> 24. stickyfingers, XL22 TrFE, T:51111 (milestone): http://crawl.develz.org/morgues/0.23/stickyfingers/crash-stickyfingers-20190224-102922.txt
14:16:18 <gammafunk> !kw nchoice
14:16:19 <Sequell> Keyword: nchoice => GhVM|TeEn|VpCj|VpAE|CeAE|DDIE|DEMo|FeWr|HaEE|GnHu|KoAK|FoSk|DDFE|OpAK|SpSk|MfAM|BaAs|TeEE|MfWz|VsNe|OpWr|DETm|KoNe|TrFE|HuEn
14:16:27 <gammafunk> =nemelex DEAr
14:16:30 <Sequell> Defined keyword: nchoice => GhVM|TeEn|VpCj|VpAE|CeAE|DDIE|DEMo|FeWr|HaEE|GnHu|KoAK|FoSk|DDFE|OpAK|SpSk|MfAM|BaAs|TeEE|MfWz|VsNe|OpWr|DETm|KoNe|TrFE|HuEn|DEAr
14:16:35 <gammafunk> =nemelex DgAM
14:16:38 <Sequell> Defined keyword: nchoice => GhVM|TeEn|VpCj|VpAE|CeAE|DDIE|DEMo|FeWr|HaEE|GnHu|KoAK|FoSk|DDFE|OpAK|SpSk|MfAM|BaAs|TeEE|MfWz|VsNe|OpWr|DETm|KoNe|TrFE|HuEn|DEAr|DgAM
14:23:12 <ebering> I'm gonna start a round of cherrypicking
14:25:06 <ebering> and push once the t ends
14:25:44 <Pinkbeast> I was wondering if we're likely to see a 0.22.2 bundle of bugfixen
14:26:16 <gammafunk> advil: looking at your change to boris
14:26:23 <gammafunk> let me find the data right quikc
14:26:25 <gammafunk> *quick
14:26:54 <gammafunk> !calc 100.0 * $(!lm * !boring uniq=boris t0.22 fmt:"$n" title:"") / $(!lg * !boring  t0.22 fmt:"$n" title:"")
14:27:01 <gammafunk> !calc 100.0 * $(!lm * !boring uniq=boris t fmt:"$n" title:"") / $(!lg * !boring  t fmt:"$n" title:"")
14:27:01 <Sequell> 1.91
14:27:05 <Sequell> 3.4
14:27:15 <gammafunk> so about 1.7 times more
14:27:29 <gammafunk> advil: so I was going to decrease the boris chance in your commit from 1/3 to 1/5
14:27:49 <gammafunk> which should end up making more similar boris placements compared to before that change
14:28:49 <gammafunk> which we would also cherry pick to 0.23.1 since I don't think any substantial increase was necessary/intentional
14:29:08 <gammafunk> not that I have anything against boris or his pet cat, mind you
15:01:00 <ebering> !time
15:01:01 <Sequell> Time: Feb 24, 2019, 08:01:00 PM, UTC.
15:04:54 <gammafunk> good job on 0.23 release and tournament, everyone!
15:04:57 <gammafunk> \o/
15:05:33 <gammafunk> I'd like to thank everone who smashed that like button and hit subscribe
15:09:11 <Yermak> Wow, is it exactly 80k games in this tourney?
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-4-g20d1e73: Improve save compat for visited level tracking 10(2 weeks ago, 1 file, 2+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/20d1e737734b
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-5-g65301dd: fix the fix 10(2 weeks ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/65301ddb9e1b
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-6-g68d10ae: Fix a shopping list crash 10(2 weeks ago, 2 files, 3+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/68d10ae32883
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-7-g3767898: Deprecate acquire item specs for regular dungeon generation 10(13 days ago, 13 files, 39+ 37-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/37678988b55e
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-8-g90c4f2a: Small tweak to vault_catalog.lua 10(13 days ago, 1 file, 1+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/90c4f2aeead3
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-9-gb3f316a: Place AK start in abyss with pregeneration on (11871) 10(13 days ago, 2 files, 13+ 9-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/b3f316a34c80
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-10-g591aee9: Eliminate some more dependencies on globals from player::player 10(13 days ago, 2 files, 17+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/591aee9b65d9
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-11-g1d7d80c: Restructure PlaceInfo fixup to handle gauntlet upgrades 10(12 days ago, 1 file, 23+ 12-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/1d7d80c6f086
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-12-g66a1699: semicolon + checkwhite 10(12 days ago, 1 file, 2+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/66a169947968
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> 03amalloy02 {ebering} 07[stone_soup-0.23] * 0.23.0-13-gdf62f00: Handle temporarily-changed terrain when asserting level validity (#11876) 10(12 days ago, 1 file, 2+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/df62f007cd6d
15:10:04 <Cheibriados> ... and 15 more commits
15:10:05 <ebering> !tstats
15:10:20 <Sequell> Stats after 16 days (t): 3440 players, 1142 runers, 556 winners, 1807 wins, 73546 games, winrate 2.46%, total player time 4y+159d+20:26:32.
15:10:31 <ebering> !tell advil I think I got all the important cherry picks but I didn't take everything and you might want to take a look
15:10:32 <Yermak> !gamesby * t
15:10:33 <Sequell> ebering: OK, I'll let advil know.
15:10:34 <Sequell> * (t) has played 80000 games, between 2019-02-08 20:00:00 and 2019-02-24 19:59:54, won 1808 (2.3%), high score 71716650, total score 10352027211, total turns 659472942, play-time/day 96d+1:45:05, total time 4y+173d+5:46:40.
15:11:05 <ebering> !gamesby * t !boring
15:11:07 <Sequell> * (t !boring) has played 73604 games, between 2019-02-08 20:00:00 and 2019-02-24 19:59:54, won 1808 (2.5%), high score 71716650, total score 10346081370, total turns 654276769, play-time/day 95d+8:51:31, total time 4y+161d+6:35:56.
15:11:20 <ebering> I guess its 80000 including quits and leaving
15:11:33 <gammafunk> !tstats
15:11:35 <ebering> but 6.4k quits/leaves
15:11:43 <gammafunk> !tstats 16 t0.19
15:11:53 <gammafunk> we beat the previous player count by ...is it over 10%?
15:11:56 <gammafunk> looked like it
15:12:04 <gammafunk> *previous highest tournament player count
15:12:06 <Sequell> Stats after 16 days (t): 3440 players, 1142 runers, 556 winners, 1807 wins, 73546 games, winrate 2.46%, total player time 4y+159d+20:26:32.
15:12:20 <gammafunk> interesting games played and time spent is down
15:12:31 <gammafunk> but regardless that's a nice increase
15:13:21 <Sequell> Stats after 16 days (t0.19): 3159 players, 1014 runers, 528 winners, 1423 wins, 79391 games, winrate 1.79%, total player time 4y+129d+8:36:16.
15:13:26 <gammafunk> we also brought down winrate a lot relative to 0.22, obviously thanks to my killer klown pies entirely
15:13:36 <gammafunk> oh guess it's less than 10%
15:13:45 <ebering> close though
15:13:46 <gammafunk> !calc 3440.0 / 3159
15:13:47 <Sequell> 1.09
15:13:51 <gammafunk> !calc 3440.0 / 3159 * 100
15:13:53 <Sequell> 108.9
15:14:07 <gammafunk> almost 9%, I'll take it
15:14:18 <gammafunk> !tstats 16 t0.22
15:14:56 <gammafunk> yermak did singlehandedly increase the player count with his alts, but we can forgive that
15:15:35 <Sequell> Stats after 16 days (t0.22): 3130 players, 1164 runers, 629 winners, 2146 wins, 76126 games, winrate 2.82%, total player time 4y+289d+12:09:17.
15:15:40 <ebering> I was thinking about a new scoring formula, one that better supports a limited-play option
15:16:04 <ebering> I might put a sketch on the GitHub wiki and get feedback now since everyone is in "think about tournament" mode
15:20:54 <gammafunk> yeah, I think it's very hard to actually effectively limit "too much" play if you want to have overall rankings and deal with all the issues of game timing and whatnot, as elliptic has said a lot in the past
15:21:16 <gammafunk> but if there's to be any change, it definitely needs work starting on it well in advance of tournament
15:21:49 <gammafunk> we just get so busy with the game dev that tournament dev is secondary until it absolutely needs to be done, so we tend to just go with what we have
15:22:09 <ebering> yeah; I think the current format is pretty close to good, but some of the dynamic scoring aspects complicate trying to add a limited play divisiono
15:22:40 <gammafunk> oh you just want to create another division
15:22:44 <ebering> yes
15:23:00 <ebering> but maybe also adjust the formula to address issues of character parking etc.
15:23:14 <ebering> the "stock market" s/b/g points should probably go
15:23:49 <ebering> ideally there'd be a nice formula that can score any block of games, and then we can apply it to all games played in the time period, or the first 27 or w/e
15:24:51 <gammafunk> right, that's been discussed in the past; that doesn't change the overall problem for the main competition, though
15:25:09 <gammafunk> but if you're mostly interested in creating something compelling for people with less time
15:25:20 <gammafunk> that could be good, possibly even a stepping stone to a new format somehow
15:25:24 <gammafunk> keep in mind that whatever is made has to successfully run on CDO, which does not have much computing resources available
15:26:03 <gammafunk> it proved to be capable of running the tournament scripts, but we cannot rebuild the db after the tournament has been underway there
15:26:50 <gammafunk> but if your changes are not going to introduce much more overhead, that should be fine
15:27:03 <gammafunk> if you ask Napkin for a login, you can also test it there
15:28:24 -!- amalloy_ is now known as amalloy
15:28:45 <ebering> the shape of the formula I have in mind should be implementable with a db similar to the current one
15:28:57 <ebering> maybe even less overhead; I got CSDC running very fast on sqlite
15:31:37 <gammafunk> well cdo is already running mysql for other things
15:37:50 <elliptic> wouldn't restricting to the first 27 games played just hugely emphasize winrate?
15:38:41 <elliptic> my impression is that a lot of people enjoy not having to worry about early game optimizing all the time
15:40:10 <elliptic> (also, 27 games can still take a huge amount of time to play)
15:40:55 <ebering> 27 was a placeholder number, just for the idea of a game-limited division
15:41:31 <gammafunk> would that be for an overall competition?
15:41:38 <elliptic> sure, but regardless my impression is that trying for a high winrate is a fairly niche thing
15:51:39 <ebering> My hope is to pick a formula normalization that can equalize high winrate with high quality tc or realtime running in the same limited space; but fundamentally yes any game=limited format is going to give an advantage to winrate which is why I'd suggest it only as a division and keep the unlimited division around also
15:51:51 <elliptic> btw I'm reasonably sure that character parking for s/b/g points is not actually an effective strategy as things stand for various reasons
15:52:51 <elliptic> I can certainly see wanting to make them non-dynamic to simplify things though
15:58:13 <elliptic> ebering: I mean, I don't have any objection to adding such a division, but as I've said before I would rather just not make any effort in any division to try to balance between winrate and speedruns and winning weird combos and other stuff
15:58:24 <elliptic> and treat them as incomparable things
16:08:45 <Kelbell> Fork (bcadrencrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.22.1-48-gc7381a7fd8
16:20:35 <Kelbell> Webtiles server stopped.
16:20:41 <Kelbell> Webtiles server started.
16:44:43 <alexjurkiewicz> you could have an opt-in tournament structure. Any game where you type `: tournament` within the first 100 turns counts as one of your 27 games
16:44:58 <alexjurkiewicz> or you can make it 0 turns
16:45:52 <Pinkbeast> It would have to be, or Mr Boring But Optimal will play 99 turns, see if they found Wyrmbane (etc), quit or :tournament...
16:52:39 <elliptic> it's not that simple to track notes
16:53:01 <elliptic> but regardless I don't think letting people choose which 27 games count really affects anything
17:09:28 <advil> ebering: fwiw I already wrote a patch to do a basic limited game division, https://github.com/crawl/dcss_tourney/pull/3
17:09:29 <Sequell> advil: You have 2 messages. Use !messages to read them.
17:09:51 <advil> I don't see a problem with it being won by people who optimize winrate
17:10:25 <advil> re 0.23.1, I have a fix for hidpi (retina) local tiles I'd like to commit before tagging, will have a chance to work on it tomorrow probably
17:11:02 <advil> ebering: also, implementing a 1-weekend division as part of the existing scripts seemed a *lot* harder than a gamecount-based division
17:14:50 <advil> also I will have a chance to look at the cherry picks tomorrow but not today
17:21:40 <elliptic> advil: it's not that I have a problem with a division that rewards high winrate play, it's that I'd rather go further and have a separate division for each aspect of crawl play
17:22:28 <elliptic> as I've said before, I think we should not try to compare different types of skill/achievements against each other
17:36:06 <gammafunk> if we do have those different skill achievements, it's also still possible for one person to win multiple (or all) categories
17:36:19 <gammafunk> *skill achievment categories
17:36:55 <gammafunk> so it's not as if it's necessary to have a single overal ranking for the main competition
17:37:53 <gammafunk> like elliptic is saying, we're trying to score these things as if they can be compared, but they're just not the same thing fundamentally
18:13:07 <Cheibriados> 03gammafunk02 07* 0.24-a0-126-g3f76249: Remove the trunk reminder for the 0.23 tournament 10(59 seconds ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/3f76249d505d
18:18:48 <Henzell> Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.24-a0-126-g3f76249 (34)
18:18:57 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.24-a0-126-g3f76249d50 (34)
18:19:56 <advil> the version of the gamecount-limited challenge that I wrote (I picked 10 games, I think 27 is too many) actually only takes entries from players who have 10 or fewer games, so it is basically designed for players who target only that scoreboard (or who don't play a lot of games)
18:21:18 <advil> so given a points status quo the winner is very unlikely to be the tournament winner (though they'd probably do ok)
18:23:04 <advil> interesting, in the current t you have to go to 51st place to find someone who would've been on that scoreboard. Though I think there were a whole bunch of >10 streaks
18:23:40 <advil> anyways, I would generally favor multiple scoreboards for different sorts of play
18:24:01 <advil> I looked into writing a time-limited one too, but as I mentioned it was a lot less trivial
18:24:30 <alexjurkiewicz> does that mean you need multiple accounts to compete in multiple divisions
18:24:39 <advil> well, people might do that I guess
18:24:43 <advil> I was wondering about that
18:24:57 <alexjurkiewicz> it's probably like, the least bad compromise
18:25:41 <advil> also it would be nice to figure out how to do some kind of seed challenges in t (which of course presents issues like scouting, etc)
18:25:47 <alexjurkiewicz> maybe you could just count the first 10 games of every account. So after you've done your 10, just go on playing the tourney
18:25:55 <advil> that's more like what ebering was suggesting
18:26:58 <advil> I would prefer not that
18:27:06 <gammafunk> advil: question for you about seeds, I took the one from my recent naar, loaded it up, pregened the dungeon, and the first levels looked fine, but stuff didn't look right when I went to v:5 in wizard mode
18:27:14 <gammafunk> does wizard mode mess with things?
18:27:18 <gammafunk> !log . naar
18:27:20 <Sequell> 1. gammafunk, XL27 NaAr, T:91503: https://crawl.kelbi.org/crawl/morgue/gammafunk/morgue-gammafunk-20190223-033153.txt
18:27:28 <advil> I saw that, but I wasn't quite sure what you meant
18:27:33 <gammafunk> testing using latest 0.23
18:27:40 <gammafunk> the v:5 map wasn't what I remembered
18:27:42 <advil> order of generation matters so you'd have to generate the levels in the same order as you did in the game
18:27:57 <gammafunk> ok, even with pregen?
18:28:08 <advil> yes, pregen just uses a specific fixed order
18:28:08 <gammafunk> so wizmode warping or my not going to lair at the right time
18:28:09 <advil> the pregen order isn't one that would be common (it goes to D:15 before entering lair)
18:28:17 <gammafunk> gotcha, so that was the problem then
18:28:27 <advil> yeah, you'd probably want to manually generate levels in that order in a non-pregen game
18:29:19 <elliptic> btw, one issue with a game-limited division is people repeatedly making new accounts until they win their first game
18:29:36 <advil> yeah, that is an issue, I don't know if people would do it or not
18:30:00 <elliptic> I think if you want to measure high winrate, you should do something like "most games won in 10 consecutive games"
18:30:05 <Lasty> wouldn't that be pretty visible, thereby undercutting their turney standing
18:30:05 <advil> we could make it against the rules (of course then we'd have to enforce it)
18:30:11 <advil> yeah
18:30:32 <ebering> my experience with csdc was that the number of people who did this was 2
18:30:37 <elliptic> or just do "longest streak" since that's another way to measure high winrate
18:30:38 <advil> I also think this division would be good for more casual (but strong-ish) players, a constituent that I think is much larger than the top players :-)
18:30:55 <elliptic> my impression has always been that casual players don't care baout winrate at all
18:31:01 <elliptic> so I'm puzzled by why you think this?
18:31:10 <advil> I don't think that's right at all :-)
18:31:40 <advil> tbh I think that these discussions often ignore 75% of the tournament players, and I don't like that
18:32:19 <advil> I mean, of course they can't care about winrate in the same way that the top players at least have the option of doing
18:32:20 <gammafunk> I think that it's true they do ignore those, but I also think that elliptic is right and more casual players don't really care a lot about winrate
18:32:26 <elliptic> maybe the composition of the playerbase has changed a lot in the last few years, but I've been present in lots of conversations in the past with people talking about how they have no interest in trying to maintain a good winrate because it involves "boring" careful early game play
18:33:08 <elliptic> advil: I mean, this is part of why I want to have lots and lots of different little things people can try for
18:33:14 <elliptic> rather than some small number of divisions
18:33:35 <gammafunk> would you expand the number of banners we have even?
18:33:56 <advil> oh, in terms of being a winscummer, that's probably right
18:34:06 <elliptic> ?
18:34:38 <advil> I do agree that most casual players don't try to win every game in the same way that gets called winscumming
18:35:01 <advil> but there are a lot of players who can win, with a decent winrate, and just won't have time to play too many games
18:35:13 <elliptic> gammafunk: yeah, idea was just to have lots of little things people can try for
18:35:32 <advil> anyways, I have to go, so I will need to check out of this discussion for now
18:35:40 <elliptic> some are banner-ish things of various difficulties (maybe not using the current banner system, but a list of achievements in some form)
18:35:41 <Lasty> Is there a legit definition for "winscumming"?
18:35:43 <gammafunk> right, that would probably be a good way to make various people happy
18:35:59 <elliptic> and some are a leaderboard with top N being displayed, for the more competitive people
18:36:00 <gammafunk> I'm not aware of one outside of the Tavern joke notion of it
18:36:05 <gammafunk> re: winscumming
18:36:07 <elliptic> yeah, never heard of this
18:36:10 <Lasty> yeah
18:37:07 <gammafunk> I'm sure there are indeed a fair number of players with a decent number of wins who care about their proportion of games won; I just don't think this is a particularly large group of players in terms of people who care about that much more than other things
18:37:38 <elliptic> anyway, idea is basically to keep tracking all the things that the scripts currently track but not worry about assigning point values to them
18:37:59 <elliptic> and then when you aren't worrying about what point values to give to things, it's easy to add new achievements and such
18:38:11 <advil> (winscumming is just a sarcastic term for people who try to win every game)
18:38:12 <elliptic> basically anything we find interesting
18:38:13 <gammafunk> so how would we list all of this information primarily, through a lot of tables?
18:38:58 <advil> (maybe more silly/meme-ish than sarcastic)
18:39:00 <elliptic> there would be a long list of tables for the things that we want to display as top N
18:39:12 <gammafunk> advil: yeah; I realize you have to go, but I'm not sure I agree that there are very large numbers of people out there going for high winrate in a way that a division would help them, but seeing some statistics about that would be interesting all the same
18:39:13 <elliptic> and then also player pages would have a list of their achievements/stats
18:40:17 <elliptic> my main uncertainty in all of this (and this came up previously when talking with gammafunk) is what to do about clans
18:40:45 <gammafunk> right, we sketched out the idea of more clan-specific cheevos that emphasized cooperation
18:40:55 <elliptic> the simplest would be just to have some of the tables/achievements/stats be on the level of clans
18:42:06 <elliptic> that might be enough, I'm not sure
18:43:47 <gammafunk> I think anything that emphasizes that sort of "I did this already, so you can go do this, fellow clan member" idea is probably good
18:44:13 <gammafunk> It could be a challenge for participants to get a sense of the tournament if there are all these tables to look at, if there are more than we have at present, since we do have quite a few already
18:45:21 <gammafunk> maybe more information is just fine though, since people are just looking through the listings to see what they want to try for
19:09:27 <gammafunk> man it'd be great if somehow we didn't have to rebuild crawl on e.g. cao/cbro/other servers to turn off the tournament warning
19:09:36 <gammafunk> I guess it's not actually too huge a deal
19:11:59 <gammafunk> !kw recentishish
19:12:00 <Sequell> Keyword: recentishish => cv>=0.19
19:12:07 <gammafunk> !ks recentishish cv>=0.20
19:12:13 <gammafunk> !kw recentishish cv>=0.20
19:12:15 <Sequell> Defined keyword: recentishish => cv>=0.20
19:12:19 <gammafunk> !kw recentish cv>=0.21
19:12:20 <Sequell> Defined keyword: recentish => cv>=0.21
19:12:24 <gammafunk> !kw recent cv>=0.22
19:12:25 <Sequell> Defined keyword: recent => cv>=0.22
19:12:30 <gammafunk> !kw current cv>=0.23
19:12:31 <Sequell> Defined keyword: current => cv>=0.23
19:12:37 <gammafunk> !kw nchoice
19:12:38 <Sequell> Keyword: nchoice => GhVM|TeEn|VpCj|VpAE|CeAE|DDIE|DEMo|FeWr|HaEE|GnHu|KoAK|FoSk|DDFE|OpAK|SpSk|MfAM|BaAs|TeEE|MfWz|VsNe|OpWr|DETm|KoNe|TrFE|HuEn|DEAr|DgAM
19:12:51 <gammafunk> !kw nchoice-0.23 GhVM|TeEn|VpCj|VpAE|CeAE|DDIE|DEMo|FeWr|HaEE|GnHu|KoAK|FoSk|DDFE|OpAK|SpSk|MfAM|BaAs|TeEE|MfWz|VsNe|OpWr|DETm|KoNe|TrFE|HuEn|DEAr|DgAM
19:12:52 <Sequell> Defined keyword: nchoice-0.23 => GhVM|TeEn|VpCj|VpAE|CeAE|DDIE|DEMo|FeWr|HaEE|GnHu|KoAK|FoSk|DDFE|OpAK|SpSk|MfAM|BaAs|TeEE|MfWz|VsNe|OpWr|DETm|KoNe|TrFE|HuEn|DEAr|DgAM
19:12:59 <gammafunk> !kw nchoice nchoice-0.23
19:13:00 <Sequell> Defined keyword: nchoice => nchoice-0.23
19:15:00 <gammafunk> !kw t0.23
19:15:01 <Sequell> Built-in: t0.23 => start>='2019-02-08 20:00:00' time<'2019-02-24 20:00:00' ((cv=0.23|0.23-a)) explbr=
19:17:19 <alexjurkiewicz> you could leave the code in and have a time check to see if it should fire. Then you can preload the warning for future tournaments too
19:21:33 <gammafunk> yeah, it could do a date check and we'd update the date whenever it was set and before release
19:21:45 <gammafunk> not really preloading it for future tournaments since the date changes every time
19:22:08 <gammafunk> not sure what you mean by "preload" in that context
19:22:37 <gammafunk> but it would presumably only require us to set a date at some point and the binary could check this
19:28:12 <alexjurkiewicz> I mean you can make the commit to update the start/end time once you lock in the tournament date. You don't need to be around to commit it at tourney start/end or ned to force a rebuild
19:28:24 <alexjurkiewicz> several days, or perhaps weeks before
19:43:24 -!- sedition_ is now known as sedition
21:14:02 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 07* 0.24-a0-127-gfc1eed5: Add a build option to not use SSE 10(8 hours ago, 1 file, 8+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/fc1eed5d34c6
21:15:10 <alexjurkiewicz> hm, it would be nice if that autodetects. I suppose someone actually using ARM can submit a PR if they care
21:16:10 <advil> we autodetect almost nothing
21:16:54 <advil> so if a cmake patch ever develops, it would be something to do, but I don't think adding autodetection of ARM to the build infrastructure is worth the effort
21:17:03 <advil> autodetecting ARM also looked pretty non-trivial
21:17:12 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.24-a0-127-gfc1eed5d34 (34)
21:25:48 <gammafunk> advil: not sure if you saw my boris message, but did you have any objections to changing that chance from 1/3 to 1/5?
21:25:48 <advil> oh, yeah, that's fine
21:25:50 <gammafunk> will do then
21:25:59 <gammafunk> will you have any time to do builds next week?
21:26:02 <advil> I did get a couple of other comments that he was ... not rare
21:26:06 <advil> yes
21:26:14 <gammafunk> yeah, I didn't believe those at first
21:26:39 <advil> it makes sense, that change simplified the respawn locs, so if you kill him early (say in vaults) he could in principle show up on every depths floor
21:26:39 <gammafunk> it wasn't *that* much of an increase but some new boris records were set
21:26:45 <gammafunk> heh, yeah
21:26:52 <gammafunk> !lm * t uniq=boris s=gid
21:26:57 <Sequell> 2586 milestones for * (t uniq=boris): 9x BerryKnight:cao:20190117001643S, 8x Debik:cue:20190123164410S, 7x Jannitor:cue:20190121085156S, 7x Neuromancer:cao:20190114034530S, 7x airin:cbro:20190113182630S, 7x Forgeling:cao:20190121041932S, 7x Lucherd:cbro:20190112002421S, 7x Gerad:cao:20190108200302S, 7x gengaozo:cwz:20190119095223S, 7x Forgeling:cao:20190119015009S, 7x Forgeling:cao:20190116175836S...
21:26:58 <advil> I think it was the location changes that probably made him seem more common
21:27:05 <advil> heh
21:28:00 <advil> !lm * t0.22 uniq=boris s=gid
21:28:02 <Sequell> 1465 milestones for * (t0.22 uniq=boris): 4x Airwolf:cao:20180711210147S, 4x Malacante:cbro:20180722185715S, 4x beargit:cjr:20180718031541S, 3x Nich:cao:20180716221447S, 3x riellis:cbro:20180712015507S, 3x pedant:cpo:20180723204740S, 3x kilrfish:cao:20180717162730S, 3x glosham:cxc:20180720184056S, 3x removed:cxc:20180721083311S, 3x Yawgmoth:cxc:20180716164756S, 3x Zeldest:cbro:20180715221542S, 3x ...
21:28:06 <advil> haha doubled
21:28:28 <gammafunk> yeah, the rate of borises per game only increased by like 80% but
21:28:38 <gammafunk> the max number of borises you could reasonably see shot up a lot
21:29:38 <advil> in principle it would be nice to read the respawn locs from the vault data too but I didn't get to doing that
21:29:46 <alexjurkiewicz> reduce his HD by one each respawn :D
21:29:57 <advil> or increase by one
21:30:05 <advil> and make him respawn on every level
21:30:15 <gammafunk> would reading those vault data do much?
21:30:28 <gammafunk> I guess it lets him place actually in vaults due to how those uniq_ vaults can place
21:30:44 <gammafunk> by in vaults I mean crawl maps, not the Vaults branch
21:31:25 <advil> his initial placement specificed there is `Depths:3-, Vaults:2-, Crypt, Tomb`, for respawning I just simplified it to any level in any of those branches
21:31:37 <gammafunk> oh, I see, so you'd have restrictions
21:31:56 <gammafunk> yeah, he's ceratinly reasonably ok on any subsequent level
21:32:02 <gammafunk> it's not a great system, really
21:32:11 <gammafunk> all it's incentivizing is for you to park him somewhere
21:32:29 <advil> I think you get xp for him each time
21:32:35 <gammafunk> yes, that's true
21:32:47 <gammafunk> but I'd still say it should be both more limited and more meaningful
21:32:57 <gammafunk> er, well
21:33:20 <gammafunk> you run into that parking aspect; obv xp is nice but not worth fighting a progressively more dangerous ancient lich probably
21:33:38 <advil> yes, I'm not sure it's a gimmick with deep gameplay
21:33:45 <advil> ??boris
21:33:45 <Sequell> boris[1/3]: A unique lich who has an awesome habit of staying undead. Spells: bolt of cold, invisibility, animate dead, iron shot, iood.
21:33:46 <gammafunk> he could have some new loot each time
21:34:03 <advil> I think he's not an alich?
21:34:16 <gammafunk> he's his own monsters type I think
21:34:19 <gammafunk> *monster
21:34:23 <advil> ah probably
21:34:29 <gammafunk> but i believe his HD is similar to ancient lich
21:34:39 <advil> ok, guess it's the different spells I noticed
21:34:50 <advil> he has never seemed that tough at his initial spawn depths to me
21:35:02 <gammafunk> *?boris
21:35:06 <gammafunk> @??boris
21:35:06 <Gretell> Boris (05L) | Spd: 10 | HD: 22 | HP: 129-184 | AC/EV: 15/10 | Dam: 25, 1513(drain) | 07undead, 10weapons, 10items, 10doors, evil, spellcaster, see invisible, unbreathing | Res: 13magic(immune), 02cold++, 10elec, 09poison+++, 12drown, 04rot+++, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 5791 | Sp: b.cold (3d32), iron shot (3d37), o.destruction (9d18), invisibility | Sz: Medium | Int: human.
21:35:11 <gammafunk> @??ancient lich
21:35:11 <Gretell> ancient lich (00L) | Spd: 10 | HD: 27 | HP: 87-125 | AC/EV: 20/10 | Dam: 2013(drain) | 07undead, 10doors, evil, spellcaster, see invisible, unbreathing | Res: 13magic(immune), 05fire, 02cold++, 10elec, 09poison+++, 12drown, 04rot+++, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 8171 | Sp: b.cold (3d37), force lance (3d27), sum.greater demon, slow, invisibility / b.corrosive (3d28), crystal spear (..
21:35:20 <gammafunk> yeah a bit less HD, more than a lich I think....maybe not
21:35:22 <gammafunk> @??lich
21:35:22 <Gretell> lich (15L) | Spd: 10 | HD: 20 | HP: 70-94 | AC/EV: 10/10 | Dam: 1513(drain) | 07undead, 10doors, evil, spellcaster, see invisible, unbreathing | Res: 13magic(immune), 02cold++, 09poison+++, 12drown, 04rot+++, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 2937 | Sp: b.cold (3d29), force lance (3d22), sum.greater demon, slow, invisibility / b.corrosive (3d23), crystal spear (3d40), petrify, haste / b.dra..
21:35:31 <gammafunk> yeah ok
21:35:40 <gammafunk> hd-wise more like a lich, hp-wise more than an ancient lich
21:35:42 <advil> !lg * t cikiller=boris
21:35:43 <Sequell> 10. Infinimo the Merry Centaur (L25 CeHu of Okawaru), blasted by Boris (iron shot) on Depths:2 on 2019-02-24 13:17:57, with 560728 points after 63478 turns and 1:47:10.
21:35:48 <advil> !lg * t0.22 cikiller=boris
21:35:49 <Sequell> 9. Berylcross the Peltast (L20 GrFi of Okawaru), blasted by Boris (iron shot) on Vaults:2 on 2018-08-25 03:43:52, with 289763 points after 38451 turns and 2:04:07.
21:36:03 <gammafunk> !killratio boris *
21:36:04 <gammafunk> !killratio boris * t
21:36:08 <Sequell> boris wins 1.290% of battles.
21:36:26 <Sequell> boris wins 0.385% of battles against * (t).
21:36:26 <gammafunk> not very good
21:36:26 <advil> guess if you can take him once, you can take him again
21:36:38 <gammafunk> yeah, I'd consider a progressive boris but I'd worry about encouraging just parking him
21:36:49 <gammafunk> if you made his average reward with the progressive versions nice enough
21:37:04 <gammafunk> drop a little loot pile of some kind, or something
21:37:17 <gammafunk> or kill him to get the key to boris' lich cave
21:37:28 <gammafunk> which is like a man cave, but for liches
21:38:02 <advil> sounds like not everyone's favorite part of the dungeon
21:38:44 <advil> better or different loot could be interesting though
21:40:17 <alexjurkiewicz> drop a key to Boris' Wizlab!!!
21:49:03 <gammafunk> dang
21:51:06 <elliptic> ??boris[2]
21:51:07 <Sequell> boris[2/3]: <Jeff_> IRON BOLT DRAIN CRYSTAL SPEAR LOL HI IM BORIS
21:51:38 <elliptic> he was scary 9 years ago
21:52:24 <gammafunk> power creep?
21:52:38 <gammafunk> also rip iron bolt, I guess
21:55:40 <elliptic> I think it's more that the rest of the game was easier
21:56:03 <elliptic> so a lot more very sketchy characters got to boris territory
21:56:14 <elliptic> !killratio boris * t0.5
21:56:17 <Sequell> boris wins 1.240% of battles against * (t0.5).
21:56:34 <elliptic> !killratio boris * t0.22
21:56:37 <Sequell> boris wins 0.610% of battles against * (t0.22).
21:56:54 <elliptic> he still wasn't amazingly threatening but most other uniques were weaker
22:01:35 <alexjurkiewicz> Press F to remember Wiglaf
22:25:03 <alexjurkiewicz> advil: any chance you could look at https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/978 soon? It will help generate a random character for CPO's weekly challenge
23:17:01 -!- OUv is now known as OliverUv
23:32:37 <ebering> while we're discussing obscuritan formulas what the players really want are stylesheets for whatever we decide to score: https://www.reddit.com/r/dcss/comments/aufn06/any_chance_we_can_get_a_page_with_a_printable/
23:37:58 <gammafunk> earn a banner to unlock a new skin for your DEFE