00:41:26 ebering: updated the chaos PR, thanks for all this feedback 00:42:52 03alexjurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1195 * 0.25-a0-68-gc8baa7a: Rework some chaos brand effects 10(20 hours ago, 1 file, 6+ 23-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/c8baa7a4337e 00:43:50 @??cerebo 00:43:50 unknown monster: "cerebo" 00:43:52 @??cereboc 00:43:52 unknown monster: "cereboc" 00:43:54 @??cerebov 00:43:54 Cerebov (05&) | Spd: 10 | HD: 21 | HP: 562-773 | AC/EV: 30/8 | Dam: 60 | 05demonic, 10weapons, 10items, 10doors, fighter, evil, see invisible | Res: 13magic(immune), 04fire+++, 05damnation, 03poison, 12drown, 04rot, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 22594 | Sp: iron shot (3d36) [06!sil], fire storm (8d17 / 8d16) [06!sil], sum.greater demon [06!sil], haste [06!sil] | Sz: Giant | .. 01:38:00 Unstable branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.25-a0-96-g4073cf8 (34) 01:39:37 where is the "this save was made in version {foo} it's now version {bar} handled? or is that just done via tags in github and not actually manually updated? 02:09:02 Windows builds of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.25-a0-96-g4073cf8 02:28:49 -!- muffindrake1 is now known as muffindrake 02:55:04 Bcadren: the version is saved in the save file itself 02:55:05 as a string 02:55:14 well a char[] i guess 02:55:17 see tags.cc 02:55:25 but where is it set as what version it is? 02:59:16 Monster database of master branch on crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.24-a0-443-g80245de 03:24:11 Unstable branch on crawl.beRotato.org updated to: 0.25-a0-96-g4073cf8 (34) 03:53:37 Stable (0.24) branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.24.0-28-g17ded55e90 03:55:41 Fork (bcrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.23-a0-2708-g79730e94b9 04:38:48 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_ 08:16:32 03alexjurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1195 * 0.25-a0-68-gbc42df7: Rework some chaos brand effects 10(28 hours ago, 1 file, 6+ 23-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/bc42df7440c7 08:30:07 The LRD spell lets you smite-target walls and monsters made out of wall-like materials. Does anyone know where in the code we determine is a monster is wall-like? 08:30:16 I'm new to the code base, sure, but I just can't find it. 08:48:09 !source feat_is_wall 08:48:10 1/1. https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/terrain.cc#L74 08:49:47 Cheers! 09:15:42 I think the question was about the monsters, not the walls 09:15:47 !source setup_fragmentation_beam 09:15:48 1/1. https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/spl-damage.cc#L1937 09:16:31 it's a switch in that function 09:20:19 john_science ^ 09:20:54 oh 09:37:02 I'm still looking. I *think* I saw in a recent game that Iron Imps were not LRD-smite-targetable, but Iron Dragons were. But I'm just trying to trace the code and monster definitions. See if (a) that's the situation, and (b) if there are other inconsistencies. 09:47:38 the only real general case there is that skeletal monsters are already targetable 09:47:53 *always 09:47:55 otherwise it's whatever's in the list in the switch 09:49:01 neither iron dragons or iron imps are targetable, you probably saw iron golems are something 09:49:06 it does seem like they should be 10:01:01 I mean... I suppose there is an argument to be made either way. But if Iron Golems are, I feel like it would make more sense to players if either ALL iron monsters are or NONE are. 10:01:21 Anything else would be hard to follow as you're playing. Just IMO, of course. 10:33:13 We're writing a patch to let scarves be randarts again, making their first property always be the scarf ego in a similar scheme to that used for jewellery. Is that likely to be worth sending as a vanilla PR? 10:44:52 %git 614d7e5f 10:44:52 07gammafunk02 * 0.21-a0-524-g614d7e5: Don't allow scarves to generate as random artefacts 10(1 year, 11 months ago, 1 file, 15+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/614d7e5ffcad 10:45:01 you would want to address the reasoning in that commit message 10:45:09 not sure I really see how to do that tbh 10:46:46 scarves are in sort of a weird place in that they're basically all more like unrands in their ego design, but can generate multiple times 10:46:59 well, intended to be more like unrands, not sure it always succeeds 10:51:34 I think my reading of that commit message was more "but that would be too much effort" than "it is not a desirable outcome", but on reflection perhaps that is wrong 10:55:08 I'd read it that way, btu you still have to justify (possibly by performance) overriding "too much effort" 10:55:20 geekosaur: Well, I propose to do the effort anyway 10:56:07 including (and this might be an argument in the other direction than it sounds) not having scarves become Pakellas-lite :) 10:56:22 I certainly don't think with the current scarf egos randart scarves would be "too good", inasmuch as only a scarf of spirit shield is really competitive with (say) a +2 cloak of MR 10:56:55 I think the point is that the existing egos are supposed to already be strong enough on their own to override picking a cloak 10:57:22 whether they are or not is a question 10:58:12 As in, to override picking not just an ego cloak but a randart one? I see what you mean. We'll leave it un-PRed. 10:58:51 yeah...gammafunk could weigh in at some point too, I might be misinterpreting 11:05:05 something like a resistance scarf is pretty strong, but over the course of a game you can usually find artefacts that are much stronger than that 11:05:50 so I'm not sure I understand/agree with that reasoning 11:10:49 I'm not sure scarf of resistance is all that great except in very specific circumstances 11:11:08 so imo it's an example of an ego that is aiming for that but not succeeding 11:11:19 which as Pinkbeast suggests is maybe every scarf ego besides spirit shield 11:15:39 In a 3-rune game I think the Resistance scarf is usually my ideal item for the slot, unless I find an artifact cloak. One of the hardest part of a 3-rune game is balancing gear to get all the resists I need. 11:15:56 Perhaps just my play style, but there's another opinion. 11:16:30 it's fairly rare that you *need* both rF and rC at the same time 11:17:13 I expect jewellery swaps to do the heavy lifting there 11:17:27 I would basically only wear it if I didn't have a relevant ring swap, and didn't have a cloak...the latter can happen routinely early to mid game ofc 11:18:40 I seem to have finished one game in spirit shield, one in repulsion (with a moan in the writeup about a lack of good cloaks), one in a randart scarf when they existed 11:18:53 Hmm... Personal preference? You can't "ring swap" to get to 3 pips of rF or rC if you need it. And if you see an Orb of Fire you NEED 3 pips of rF fast. 11:19:09 you don't ever need 3 pips of either 11:19:14 and definitely not at the same time 11:19:26 You don't; the third pip of rF and rC does very little, and the second not all that much. You NEED 1 pip fast, and 2 is nice to have. 11:20:58 (That said, when you're fighting two OOFs and an electric golem, don't swap from rF++ to rF+ rElec. Quaff your potion of resistance. Turns out I'm an idiot. But I digress...) 11:23:07 Stable (0.23) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23.1-91-gf373564dc4 11:46:39 Fork (bcadrencrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.22.1-661-g028babb269 12:28:39 Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.25-a0-96-g4073cf8 (34) 13:04:24 -!- amalloy_ is now known as amalloy 14:36:03 man, the cjr logfile mess involves 6185 games 14:36:44 I know people have resisted hand-editing logfiles after the fact but given that these logfiles will never change again, I wonder if it would make sense to just produce a cleaned-up version of the -git one 14:43:23 Ah, we can LRD/Shatter Iron Golems, but not Iron Dragons or Iron Imps on purpose: 14:43:25 https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/1d1f32e58f75fa36788bb27e290c3b65a3c923e7/crawl-ref/source/spl-damage.cc#L894 14:44:04 Apparently, we used to be able to and someone decided to remove all those "silly" monsters from the list of monsters made of wall-like materials. 14:45:29 On the one hand, I don't want to change it because it was clearly a purposeful decision at some point. On the other hand, I thought it was confusing as a player as to what counted as a monster made of wall-like material (e.g. Iron Golem yes, Iron Dragon no). 14:47:09 hm, that comment is pre-version-control it looks like, so it's hard to see what the change was (i.e. it is present in the "Initial revision" commit) 14:53:26 lol 14:54:29 I hadn't even checked the history. "pre-version-control". Man, in the centuries to come, that'll be a phrase archeologists use. 14:57:40 looks like that change was made back around 3.40: https://github.com/crawl/crawl-ancient/commit/5a40db16504f26ed3a7d309a0a76713552a015e8#diff-9bc023b08e2ddf476b99d7a6972578b5R653 14:57:59 imo it's dangerous to assume there must have been a good reason for x code to be written 14:58:02 nice! 14:58:23 advil: I think it'd be alright to hand-fix archive logfiles like cjr's, certainly 14:58:24 yeah, that commit did remove iron dragons and iron devils, iron imps didn't exist yet 14:58:35 we can always re-upload the archive to where we store it 14:59:16 otoh we might have duplicate entries arise in the future, so it'd be nice if the scoring systems were all somewhat robust to that 14:59:27 yeah, I already wrote the dup detection code 14:59:32 that's how I know the exact # 14:59:39 ah, neat 15:00:15 I do agree that it's not entirely predictable from either the monster name, or the monster description, that lrd won't work on iron imps and dragons (more so for iron imps, where the desc says they are made of iron) 15:01:31 iron dragons say, " It is named for its scales, which are so tough they might be iron. Small flakes of metal trail from its nostrils.", in contrast to ice dragons (also removed in that commit), whose desc I think doesn't imply anything about what they are made of 15:01:58 I don't have strong feelings on gameplay-wise whether it matters, except that lrd is pretty strong already without any buff even minor 15:03:00 but consistency to the user is important 15:03:10 I guess my opinion is that it should be the player should have some way to guess what counts as targetable by LRD. 15:03:18 what would probably help would be if we had lrd stick to damaging one type of thing (terrain vs monsters) 15:03:34 Perhaps that means changing the targetable list, or perhaps just tweaking monster descriptions to things like "as hard as iron". Etc. 15:03:55 molten gargoyles aren't lrd-able 15:03:56 it does cue that it will target monsters by prioritizing them in the default targeting over walls 15:03:59 because they're liquid 15:04:16 (though tbh, I forgot that every single time I cast it in my last game) 15:05:28 Yeah, LRD does auto-target any valid enemies first. I noticed that once or twice. 15:09:38 gammafunk: do you remember how long it takes to fully rebuild the cao scoring db? I wasn't really paying attention last time this happened 15:09:44 it's on the order of days, right? 15:10:04 yeah I recall neil saying it's a very long time...like maybe more than a week? 15:10:12 (also, do we know if it lags webtiles when doing that?) 15:10:14 you could find him talking about it in the dv logs 15:10:14 ouch 15:10:35 yeah I've found some discussions but haven't found much about the timing, just that it's long 15:10:45 not sure about CAO webtiles, but I don't think so 15:21:41 More than a week? Yikes. 15:45:02 No easy way to offload that? (get a dump of everything, have someone with a spare server/computer churn through everything, then rpload the results?) 15:47:04 shalmezad: well advil is working on improving the scoring scripts right now, so that might not be so necessary 15:48:23 shalmezad: yes, that should work as far as I can tell, importing from a mysqldump state ought to be a lot faster 15:48:27 it's something I've been considering 15:48:43 if we have a known good mysqldump restarting would be a lot easier too 15:49:41 I'm not sure how much I'll realisitically be able to do in terms of speeding up the initial import in the current scripts, there's a *lot* of data it has to churn through, and it relies on processing the games one by one in order to get several things right (most notably streaks) 15:49:47 *realistically 15:50:50 it would potentially be much faster if it didn't need to do one INSERT per logfile line (essentially) but I haven't yet worked out how to do that without doing something really different for streaks 15:51:11 because it only saves wins outside of a small window, calculating streaks correctly really relies on processing old logfiles in order 15:51:42 if it saved every game you could do it from the db, but it doesn't (and that's maybe not feasible) 15:54:16 er, to be clear, it saves all wins, but for non-wins, you only have recent games 15:58:51 Fork (bcadrencrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.22.1-662-g77dd31ce1a 16:00:11 !lg * 16:00:12 11171376. kinazarov the Sneak (L4 DsAs), slain by a gnoll on D:2 on 2019-11-11 20:59:44, with 69 points after 1213 turns and 0:06:25. 16:01:31 the current cao db is saving about 100k wins and 1.5 million recent games, so it would need about 10x the games to have everything 16:10:49 !lg * recent / won 16:10:52 22273/1877572 games for * (recent): N=22273/1877572 (1.19%) 16:10:56 !lg * 16:10:58 11171415. b0sc02 the Chopper (L6 CeFi), slain by a gnoll sergeant (a +0 spear) on D:5 on 2019-11-11 21:09:57, with 300 points after 2929 turns and 0:06:02. 16:11:17 not as much more as i expected only 10x 16:13:37 !lm * 16:13:40 57217917. [2019-11-11 21:12:50] Kratos the Severer (L13 MiBe of Trog) killed Josephine on turn 17954. (Lair:4) 16:13:44 !lm * recent 16:14:13 12855626. [2019-11-11 21:12:50] Kratos the Severer (L13 MiBe of Trog) killed Josephine on turn 17954. (Lair:4) 16:33:22 03nirrattner02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1198 * 0.25-a0-98-g5f63950: Calculate training target skill point difference 10(32 seconds ago, 3 files, 76+ 46-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/5f63950aaa80 16:39:52 Sorry if this is too far off topic, but, is it possible to change passwords on a webtiles account? 16:40:22 TabMasher: if the server supports console, you can log in via ssh to change your password 16:40:48 there's only one webtiles server (cko) that support webtiles password changes 16:41:03 meaning you can do the change via webtiles itself 16:41:38 ??console 16:41:39 console[1/2]: http://crawl.develz.org/wordpress/howto 16:41:49 some basic instructions for connecting via SSH if you're interested 16:43:14 Thank you. :) 18:15:10 what's with the complex logic for determining if ignacio spawns based on number of runes? 18:16:12 it seems like he can spawn on multiple pan levels, but every time he might spawn there is a chance to block all future spawns, based on the number of runes collected? 18:20:04 if ignacio hasn't spawned, the chance of spawning is runes^2/100%/2 (~12.5% for 5 runes, 50% for 10). Then there is a 50% chance you could see him again 18:20:04 alexjurkiewicz: i think at least the point of blocking future spawns is that otherwise you'd see ignacio in ~100% of games 18:20:10 this logic is hard to follow 18:20:44 i don't think you can ever see him again, can you? 18:21:44 yes. If Ignacio hasn't spawned and crawl.x_chance_in_y(runes * runes, 100) == true, and dgn.persist.ignacio_forbid = crawl.coinflip() = false, you would have a 25% chance per subsequent level (assuming you didn't kill him) 18:23:50 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.25-a0-96-g4073cf80fb (34) 18:24:41 you.uniques is normally set if you see a monster, not if you kill it, right? so he will be vetoed if he's ever generated 18:25:07 i don't really understand what the point of ignacio_forbid is either 18:33:28 i remember running across this when trying to understand persistent dungeon state for seed purposes 18:33:47 it only semi-made sense to me and to the degree it made sense I wasn't entirely sure it was working 18:34:05 I think the idea is that ignacio has a 50% chance to spawn in any game, regardless of how many pan floors you wander through 18:35:26 I think the harassing you with more runes thing is sort of like pan lords following you around 18:36:47 it seems like i am wrong, though. if i remove the ignacio_forbid code, ignacio shows up multiple times 18:37:14 so the first time he *could* harass you and levelgen makes the rune roll, he has a 50% chance to spawn, and once that second roll fails, he will never spawn 18:37:22 he's supposed to be able to show up multiple times 18:37:34 each time it does that 50% check 18:37:52 right, but i don't understand how that works. shouldn't you.uniques("Ignacio") become true the first time he generates? 18:37:55 that is, nothing except ignacio_forbid constrains him coming back on a new level 18:38:09 all of that is based on the vault uniq tags 18:38:15 not on you.uniques 18:38:18 oh, i see 18:38:24 ignacio's vault is only luniq 18:38:33 so what does you.uniques normally measure/count? 18:38:38 uniques seen, or killed? 18:38:44 which you've seen 18:39:01 but I don't think it's used for any levelgen decisions 18:39:15 okay, so...if you've seen him, he wouldn't be able to spawn again, because that veto in uniq_ignacio would trigger? 18:39:33 well, that's how other uniques work 18:39:42 not ignacio, since he doesn't have uniq_ignacio 18:40:57 so, the uniq_foo tag is what causes you.uniques to be updated? 18:41:06 and not the placement of the actual monster? 18:43:30 oh, sorry, I'm slightly off I think...the relevant vaults are unique by default because they aren't allow_dup 18:43:43 I'm pretty sure that's true 18:45:00 !vault uniq_mennas_pan 18:45:00 1/1. https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/dat/des/builder/uniques.des#L321 18:45:12 here's one that is tagged allow_dup but checks you.uniques 18:45:23 but that is a special case 18:45:52 the pan lord logic also uses you.uniques for the rune chasing 18:47:21 ok, enchantress, grum, jory, ijyb, robin, sigmund, jessica, SoH also all have special logic that checks you.uniques 18:47:29 for some vaults 18:48:44 Stops the vault placing and then going "oh, can't have Sigmund, we'll have something else"? 18:49:01 maybe this logic could be simplified to just place ignacio on a flat percentage of floors until you kill him 18:49:18 if you wander pandemonium enough, you'll find ignacio 18:49:52 I'm not sure but I think the intent of that part may have been exactly so that you couldn't get him by grinding 18:52:33 %git 429c02b 18:52:33 07kilobyte02 * 0.10-a0-1254-g429c02b: Tie Ignacio's chances to start harassing you to the number of Pan runes. 10(8 years ago, 1 file, 11+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/429c02b03c61 18:52:33 hm 18:52:37 ah there we go 18:52:45 before that commit it was a flat 10% chance 18:53:37 oh yeah. maybe the right approach is to have most games never spawn ignacio but the rest to spawn on flat chance 18:55:57 yeah, maybe 18:56:09 I doubt the outcome of this rune logic is noticeable 18:59:41 I wonder how often in practice he follows the player around 19:00:19 the flat 10% chance was recurring 19:00:48 my feeling is that ignacio is one of the rarer uniques to encounter, even discounting the point of game he appears 19:02:35 that vault already only has a 25% chance to appear 19:03:44 so if he hasn't been forbidden by the time the player gets 5 pan runes, that's only 6% still 19:35:28 my understanding of Ignacio: every time you enter a new Pan floor there's a 25% chance of a) spawning him in a floor if he has already appeared but is not dead, or b) maybe spawning or vetoing him if neither of those have happened 19:36:37 on b), it's a (rune^2)/100 chance to see if the game chooses to spawn or veto him 19:37:12 if that second check fails, he isn't vetoed yet, nothing happens until the 25% check on the next pan level 19:37:31 if that second check passes, the game either spawns him for the first time, or vetoes him 19:38:54 so there's only one chance for the 50% veto, and deciding if that happens has a 6.25% chance (25% ^ 2) of triggering at best 19:39:12 but if he is spawned and not vetoed and not killed, he has a 25% chance of appearing on any further pan floor 19:40:37 (I looked into this earlier when unique hunting in the tournament) 19:41:45 yes, I think that's all correct 19:42:13 I might have earlier said that the rune check gets rerolled, but you are right that it only happens if he has never spawned before, otherwise he just respawns if his vault does 19:43:17 so he's actually one of the more common uniques I think (50% every game!) but it's hard for a player to actually tell if he is going to appear or not 19:47:35 huh, except now I've confused myself about what that you.uniques check is doing 19:50:23 because that should actually preclude him appearing again as far as I can tell? pretty sure it's not cleared on deleting the level 19:52:54 Well it's the same you.uniques check for the other panlords in uniques.des 19:53:07 and they definitely can appear multiple times if you haven't killed them 19:58:16 I think you.unique_creatures is the check to see if they have appeared or not, and you.uniques the check to see if they're been killed 19:59:08 ah, uniques are in fact deleted if a level is deleted 19:59:14 you.uniques is just if they're spawned 19:59:23 specifically in pan: 19:59:27 !source _do_lost_monsters 19:59:27 1/1. https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/files.cc#L1107 20:00:21 so any unique left alive when leaving a pan level will be removed from you.unique_creatures (/you.uniques) 20:01:24 er, to be clear, you.uniques is a lua interface to c++ you.unique_creatures 20:01:39 !source _you_uniques 20:01:40 1/1. https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/l-you.cc#L1332 20:04:54 that makes sense 20:06:08 anyhow the outcome of the rune logic (and strategy to find Ignacio) is very noticeable if you know that it exists and are trying to hunt him. whether that's desirable or not is another question; my personal feeling is "not really" 20:07:25 if you are trying to find him and waste minimal time, it makes sense to a) get all the pan runes b) go to 20-30 pan floors as fast as possible c) fully explore 8 or so floors d) give up if you haven't found him yet 20:11:00 that does seem a bit silly 20:11:01 !lg * ckiller=ignacio 20:11:03 39. filfer the Sorcerer (L27 HuWz), mangled by Ignacio (a +6 executioner's axe of pain) in Pandemonium on 2019-07-08 04:51:43, with 907776 points after 105305 turns and 8:28:19. 20:16:42 What about changing it so he has a flat 25% (?) chance to appear in any game, and if he will appear, 25% chance of appearing on any pan floor until killed? I could make that change 20:23:44 Basically I think that it's fine if Ig rarely appears in a game, as long as if he is going to appear, it's likely the player will find him in the course of getting all the pan runes 20:27:28 I think it would be better to start with reworking ignacio the unique 20:27:55 I don't believe it was really intentional that ignacia be hard to find; probably the person making the unique was worried about difficulty 20:28:09 but ignacio is just not very difficult for a character that would go to pan 20:29:04 fighting that unique is generally less memorable than fighting a random pan lord ime 20:30:11 it would be fine to have a sort of mara/mennas-style "significantly higher difficulty relatively to what else is in the branch" design for it 20:30:27 and then it could fairly rare to find ignacio 20:35:47 give him singularity :D 20:36:49 but yeah, I agree he should be reworked...but it would be not too hard to clean up this wacky placement thing 20:36:59 independent of any reworking 20:42:14 huh...IA has some dobrazupa morgues 20:42:21 I wonder how extractable those are? 20:42:25 e.g. random example https://web.archive.org/web/20181012013353/http://dobrazupa.org/morgue/4thArraOfDagon/morgue-4thArraOfDagon-20130513-203112.txt 20:50:08 https://web.archive.org/web/http://dobrazupa.org/morgue/whatever.txt seems to work for every case I've tried, using examples from cao scoring 20:50:08 did anyone already know this? 20:52:01 it also looks like old tournament stuff is archived 21:02:51 ah it looks like it's only an extremely incomplete set of morgues 21:03:07 I wonder if it was crawling via cao scoring actually 21:31:26 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_ 21:47:48 -!- amalloy_ is now known as amalloy 21:51:21 @??ignacio 21:51:21 Ignacio (131) | Spd: 20 | HD: 18 | HP: 223-290 | AC/EV: 10/15 | Dam: 20, 10, 10, 5 | 05demonic, 10items, 10doors, fighter, evil, see invisible | Res: 06magic(160), 05fire, 02cold, 10elec, 03poison, 04rot, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy, 11silver | XP: 12751 | Sp: agony [06!sil], haste [06!sil] | Sz: Large | Int: human. 21:51:25 @??executioner 21:51:25 Executioner (151) | Spd: 20 | HD: 12 | HP: 53-78 | AC/EV: 10/15 | Dam: 30, 10, 10 | 05demonic, 10doors, fighter, evil, see invisible | Res: 06magic(140), 05fire, 02cold, 10elec, 03poison, 04rot, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 2312 | Sp: pain (d14) [06!sil], haste [06!sil] | Sz: Large | Int: human. 21:51:29 @??cereboc 21:51:29 unknown monster: "cereboc" 21:51:31 @??cerebov 21:51:31 Cerebov (05&) | Spd: 10 | HD: 21 | HP: 562-773 | AC/EV: 30/8 | Dam: 60 | 05demonic, 10weapons, 10items, 10doors, fighter, evil, see invisible | Res: 13magic(immune), 04fire+++, 05damnation, 03poison, 12drown, 04rot, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 22594 | Sp: iron shot (3d36) [06!sil], fire storm (8d17 / 8d16) [06!sil], sum.greater demon [06!sil], haste [06!sil] | Sz: Giant | .. 22:10:44 gammafunk: advil: for your consideration. Can make a PR if you're interested https://github.com/crawl/crawl/compare/master...alexjurkiewicz:ignacio-simplification 22:12:19 alexjurkiewicz: just a clarification, neither mara nor asterion generate in Pan 22:13:16 I wouldn't double his spell frequencies, given what spells ignacio has. Maybe just find another nice thematic spell 22:13:31 don't need to copy from this guy, but could be a source of inspiration 22:13:37 @?gloorx vloq 22:13:37 Gloorx Vloq (15&) | Spd: 20 | HD: 16 | HP: 292-417 | AC/EV: 10/10 | Dam: 45 | 05demonic, 10doors, fighter, evil, see invisible, fly | Res: 13magic(immune), 02cold, 10elec, 03poison, 04rot, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 12586 | Sp: poison arrow (3d23) [06!sil], miasma breath (3d13) [06!sil], s.torment [06!sil], dispel undead (3d25) [06!sil], sum.executioners [06!sil] | Sz: Large .. 22:13:47 @?black sun 22:13:47 gelid black sun (136) | Spd: 10 | HD: 15 | HP: 77-112 | AC/EV: 22/10 | Dam: 25 | natural, 05demonic, 10weapons, 10items, 10doors, priest, evil, see invisible | Res: 06magic(60), 12cold+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy, 11silver | XP: 1308 | Sp: b.draining (3d22) [11!AM], dispel undead (3d24) [11!AM], black mark [11!AM] | Sz: Medium | Int: human. 22:13:51 ??black mark 22:13:51 black mark[1/2]: Demonspawn mutation gained at level 3 of the negative energy facet. Gives melee attacks that deal damage a 1/5 chance of applying antimagic, weakness or draining to the target. 22:13:56 ??black mark[2 22:13:56 black mark[2/2]: Also a monster spell, from {black sun}s and {Murray}. Any allies in LOS as well as the caster begin absorbing vital energies, and any melee done will, with no rN check, heal said individuals as well as either drain XP, speed, or mp. (This has an antimagic, slowing, or HD drain effect on other monsters). Not that dangerous without the right ally. 22:14:11 not a good fit 22:14:27 there's always torment/dispel, but those are overused 22:15:06 agony isn't a great choice due to how unlikely it is to be applicable, and ignacio doesn't have trouble hasting himself I think 22:15:15 maybe there's a good candidate spell out there for him as an upgrade 22:15:41 might browse through mon-spell.h to see (if that's the right filename) 22:18:44 Honestly I think the best way to improve Ig might be just giving him a boatload more HP and AC 22:19:37 An executioner with cleaving is already a fairly interesting enemy, he just lacks the resilience to be a big threat 22:20:14 cleaving isn't all that interesting on a monster; it's just anti-allies, and not even all that good at that 22:22:41 not really too excited to fight ignacio with more HP/AC; it would be good to get something that capitalised a bit more on its speed 22:22:41 it's more interesting if he's really hard to kill, because it means summon-spam is going to be not too effective at disabling him 22:22:54 but I guess you're right that it's not extremely effective at dealing with allies 22:23:04 especially ones from a pan-tier player 22:23:09 I disagree that it would be hard to kill him with allies, yeah; the axe was really just chosen for makhleb flavor I think 22:23:47 which I have no problem with the axe, but ignacio is just a bit bland as all it can do is melee you or cast spells likely to do nothing for chars at that depth 22:25:05 alexjurkiewicz: I think it's ok to buff some of his stats, maybe you can try to think of either some existing spell or some new thing to give him before we merge that, though 22:25:12 I'll try to think of something myself 22:25:21 lord knows we have a lot of monster spells to choose from 22:25:43 ??tortuous demonspawn 22:25:43 I don't have a page labeled tortuous_demonspawn in my learndb. 22:26:16 ??demonspawn[tortu 22:26:16 demonspawn[3/4]: Demonspawn enemies live in Pan. There are five bases of mutation clumpings and god-based classes, akin to draconians. Monstrous Ds have auxes and high health, gelid Ds have rC++ and 10 ac until hit with fire once, infernal Ds have rF++ and af_fire, putrid Ds heal from any ally deaths in LOS, torturous Ds have spines, augmentation, PbP. 22:26:16 wow...how did I know that putrid Ds did that 22:26:44 rather than buffing stats per se, the torturous aug+PbP might be interesting 22:26:46 s/I know/I not know/ 22:26:57 I think putrid got removed? 22:27:00 ah 22:27:05 @?putrid demonspawn 22:27:05 ??putrid 22:27:05 unknown monster: "putrid demonspawn" 22:27:05 putrid demonspawn[1/1]: putrid Ds heal from any ally deaths in LOS (see: ??demonspawn[3/4]) 22:27:15 @?tortuous demonspawn 22:27:15 unknown monster: "tortuous demonspawn" 22:27:31 it is torturous, that was my mistake 22:27:38 oh 22:27:56 what does monster pbp/aug do? 22:28:08 oh was that removed, is that what you're saying 22:28:13 @?turturous 22:28:13 unknown monster: "turturous" 22:28:18 @??turturous 22:28:18 unknown monster: "turturous" 22:28:27 I think that one is still in there? 22:28:42 @?torturous demonspawn 22:28:42 torturous demonspawn (066) | Spd: 10 | HD: 10 | HP: 47-63 | AC/EV: 9/11 08(spiny 5d4) | Dam: 20 | natural, 05demonic, 10weapons, 10items, 10doors, evil | Res: 06magic(40), 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy, 11silver | XP: 716 | Sz: Medium | Int: human. 22:28:57 so that still exists 22:29:33 yeah 22:31:59 I don't think torturous have anything special besides spines, currently 22:32:42 well I'll certainly see if I can think up something; people can obviously simplify his spawn independent of that (and assuming we make fighting him more memorable) 22:34:41 I don't think we need to go full doy with a serpent of hell level of buff (at least not Dis serpent of hell), but we can do something :) 22:35:10 ah r-i removed the fancier things from torturous 22:35:21 it's true that the pbp effect was probably fairly hidden 22:35:40 probably not super effective either, but I don't recall exactly how it worked 22:35:58 !lg * dis current s=cikiller% 22:36:00 278 games for * (dis current): 88x a Hell Sentinel (31.65%), 35x the effects of Hell (12.59%), 31x Dispater (11.15%), 29x an iron giant (10.43%), 20x a Brimstone Fiend (7.19%), 15x a hellion (5.40%), 11x the Serpent of Hell (3.96%), 10x a reaper (3.60%), 7x a war gargoyle (2.52%), 6x an iron dragon (2.16%), 5x an Ice Fiend (1.80%), 3x a quicksilver dragon (1.08%), 2x an ettin zombie (0.72%), 2x (0... 22:36:13 less than I'd thought 22:36:25 guess it's just the fact that it's only 1/4 chance it spawns 22:36:37 !killratio the_serpent_of_hell * current dis 22:36:57 it doesn't spawn that often 22:36:57 SoH is easy to dodge if you don't want to fight it though, presumably Ignacio wouldn't be 22:37:17 yeah easier, but you can also just teleport/go to another pan level; definitely a little harder at least 22:37:25 @?serpent of hell 22:37:25 the Serpent of Hell (05D) | Spd: 14 | HD: 17 | HP: 225-319 | AC/EV: 16/12 | Dam: 3504(fire:17-33) per head, 1509(claw), 1507(trample) | 05demonic, 04breaks doors, evil, see invisible, fly | Res: 06magic(180), 04fire+++, 05damnation, 03poison, 12drown, 04rot, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 11318 | Sp: {head 1: fire breath (3d34), head 2: flaming cloud (d25), head 3: fireball (3d27)}.. 22:37:31 it's fast, at least 22:37:39 breaks door, wow 22:37:41 the_serpent_of_hell wins 1.603% of battles against * (current dis). 22:37:56 !killratio dispater dis current 22:38:53 No battles for dispater and dis (current). 22:38:59 oops 22:39:03 !killratio dispater * dis current 22:39:06 dispater wins 0.919% of battles against * (dis current). 22:39:15 SoH is the real holder of the iron throne 22:45:38 Final score: dispater (2); the serpent of hell (8) [0 ties] 22:46:05 Dis form is pretty devastating 22:51:29 how do you choose which SoH form for arena? 22:51:46 @?serpent of hell dis 22:51:46 the Serpent of Hell (10D) | Spd: 14 | HD: 17 | HP: 259-391 | AC/EV: 30/8 | Dam: 35(reach) per head, 2509(claw), 2507(trample), 15 | 05demonic, 04breaks doors, evil, see invisible | Res: 06magic(180), 05fire, 02cold, 03poison, 12drown, 04rot, 13neg+++, 13torm | Vul: 08holy | XP: 11556 | Sp: {head 1: metal splinters (3d30), head 2: b.quicksilver (3d20), head 3: crystal spear (3d36)} [11!AM.. 22:51:51 think that works 22:52:34 ah, i was overthinking it. thanks. 23:18:26 all the SoHs beat up Dispater about equally well, heh. Cocytus form is the strongest, likely because of af_cold 23:18:37 i guess my thought was to make ignacio scary enough that players would often run 23:19:04 to take advantage of the repeat spawning mechanic 23:32:50 03alexjurkiewicz02 {ebering} 07* 0.25-a0-97-g19cdb01: Rework some chaos brand effects 10(2 days ago, 1 file, 6+ 23-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/19cdb01801fb 23:38:25 alexjurkiewicz: yeah, that's a common motif of pan as it is what with the pan lord chasing and the way the respawns work 23:38:46 if you get a level and the first thing you see is a random hell sentinel, you probably got some bad spawns and are more likely to just leave 23:39:22 It's not a terrible thing, I think, making ignacio actually fearsome and worse than average pan lord 23:47:34 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.25-a0-97-g19cdb01801 (34)