00:17:39 <PleasingFungus> oops i forgot to re-alphabetize item descriptions
00:32:11 <Cheibriados> New branch created: pull/1281 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281
00:32:11 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-493-gc24d2d9: Always upload coverage data to Codecov 10(20 hours ago, 1 file, 4+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/c24d2d9c6389
00:36:00 <Psymania> wait really
00:36:03 <Psymania> only one lair branch?
00:36:09 <Psymania> is that going to be a thing?
00:36:29 <PleasingFungus> i mean, maybe
00:36:37 <PleasingFungus> speak now or forever hold your pizza
00:38:56 <gammafunk> it's just a pull request
00:39:29 <PleasingFungus> you know what comes after pull requests
00:39:31 <PleasingFungus> merges!!
00:39:40 <gammafunk> push requests? no...
00:40:11 <PleasingFungus> does seem unlikely
00:43:32 <gammafunk> I'm not really excited about it as a fix to the relatively easy second Lair branch thing
00:43:32 <gammafunk> definitely not excited about the claim "The first branch of these the player enters is typically a reasonable
00:43:32 <gammafunk> challenge, but the second is usually too easy. (There are exceptions,
00:43:32 <gammafunk> for example games where the player is poison immune and shoals
00:43:32 <gammafunk> generates.)"
00:44:30 <gammafunk> which seems to imply that you only enter poison branches before shoals if you have rpois or poison immunity
00:45:33 <gammafunk> my apologies for not putting "poison branches" properly in quotes
00:46:38 <alexjurkiewicz> as per random_choose_disabled_branches(), it's `"poison" branches`
00:48:08 <gammafunk> "mob" branches
00:48:17 <gammafunk> you know, the one with a lot of mobs
00:49:21 <alexjurkiewicz> I don't mean for the commit message to imply poison branches are *always* easier than poison branches. But I do think: for most characters the difficulty of the two branches is roughly similar, so after you complete one the second is "too easy"
00:49:21 <gammafunk> I think you missed a "non" in there?
00:49:38 <alexjurkiewicz> careful players often clear both branches in parallel, which I think is evidence the difficulties are very similar
00:51:33 <alexjurkiewicz> hm, I don't think I missed a non, or at least I can't see where?
00:51:50 <gammafunk> "to imply poison branches are *always* easier than poison branches"
00:53:00 <alexjurkiewicz> haha. yeah. So I think: usually "poison" and "water" branches are the same difficulty for the player. Sometimes they are not. I dislike the former case, and suggest single-s-branch as a solution
00:54:11 <Cheibriados> New branch created: shattersphere (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/tree/shattersphere
00:54:11 <Cheibriados> 03PleasingFungus02 07[shattersphere] * 0.25-a0-492-gd80106d: New single-use item: Shattersphere 10(12 minutes ago, 10 files, 139+ 17-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/d80106dd9f90
00:54:48 <PleasingFungus> isn't any branch with yaks a mob branch
00:56:40 <PleasingFungus> easy fix to the lair branch issue: whichever branch the player enters second should spawn the transdimensional hellspider
00:56:48 <PleasingFungus> makes the choice much more weighty
00:58:51 <alexjurkiewicz> +1
01:00:34 <Cheibriados> New branch created: pull/1282 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1282
01:00:34 <Cheibriados> Branch pull/1282 updated to be equal with shattersphere: 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1282
01:00:45 <PleasingFungus> if you liked that, you'll love my *next* pr
01:00:45 <gammafunk> just when I thought my spheres where safe from arbitrary shatters
01:02:41 <alexjurkiewicz> how common are shatterspheres? If they are single-digit use per game, maybe they should prompt for self damage to help newbies
01:03:06 <PleasingFungus> currently as common as the other evocables (phantom mirror, box of beasts, etc)
01:03:09 <PleasingFungus> i don't have itemstat on hand
01:04:05 <PleasingFungus> very plausible that they should actually prompt if they are that rare, fair. what did you think about the evocations question (the second bullet point in the PR description)?
01:04:57 <PleasingFungus> also, of course, what do you think about the overall concept
01:06:32 <alexjurkiewicz> I like the concept of more evocables, especially ones that are useful without training evocations. However I worry it will not be clear what parts of the game shattersphere damage is "worth it" or not. But perhaps it will be more clear than the hidden scaling of current evocables!
01:07:20 <PleasingFungus> one problem with rarity is that you get less chance to experiment and see how useful they are at various points
01:07:22 <alexjurkiewicz> self damage seems like a pretty big turn off to me. Especially uncertain self damage
01:08:24 <alexjurkiewicz> One "bad" thing about evocables now is that there are so many recharging ones that are good even if you don't train evo. So not immediately a fan of any idea to make it recharge
01:08:30 <PleasingFungus> oh no
01:08:37 <PleasingFungus> wouldn't do that
01:08:56 <PleasingFungus> was thinking of box of beasts style
01:09:20 <alexjurkiewicz> oh yeah! that could work. But then even more inventory pressure.
01:09:40 <PleasingFungus> more than 1 use version?
01:10:08 <alexjurkiewicz> i guess they could stack. boxes and sacks don't, I think
01:10:24 <PleasingFungus> they do i think
01:10:25 <PleasingFungus> these days
01:10:53 <alexjurkiewicz> I take it back then. I like the idea of multiple uses, at least equally as much as single use
01:11:28 <PleasingFungus> you said you liked evocables that don't need evocations skill - could you elaborate on that more? do you like that it's useful at 0 evo, or that it doesn't interact with evo skill at all?
01:12:20 <PleasingFungus> (and why)
01:13:03 <PleasingFungus> re self damage: yeah i figured people would be turned off by that. for me, i really like the self damage as the 'interesting' part of the design, but it's possible that's me getting up too much into my head, too much 'developer think'... it might be fine with 1 more range (so it doesn't always have a chance of hitting you), so that it's more
01:13:03 <PleasingFungus> powerful for armoured players (since they can drop it on themselves fairly safely) but usable by anyone
01:15:17 <alexjurkiewicz> I am not a fan of consumables being affected by a skill, I think is the short summary of my position. As to why, mostly that it's aesthetically displeasing to permanently allocate SP to improve finite resources
01:16:04 <PleasingFungus> hm, so you're opposed to the existence of the evocations skill?
01:16:15 <alexjurkiewicz> yeah. I like the idea of consumables that have an immediate big impact and then go away, like potion of might or scroll of fear
01:16:43 <PleasingFungus> a game (especially a 3 rune game) is of finite length, so it doesn't seem especially notable that consumables are finite... ultimately it's all about win%
01:17:14 <PleasingFungus> but maybe that's not the point... aesthetics will be as they are
01:17:57 <alexjurkiewicz> I think as a player there is the classic issue of "finishing the game without having used the BFG". Which is something the crawl game (and community) is very keen on trying to train out of people, to be fair
01:18:50 <PleasingFungus> wouldn't evo skill help with that? i mean, if you've trained evo, you *want* to try out your wand of iceblast with lvl 8 evo (wow!)
01:19:02 <PleasingFungus> whereas obviously you save that scroll of fear all the way through zot:5 and back up to d:1
01:19:09 <PleasingFungus> gotta keep that thing under lock and key
01:21:30 <alexjurkiewicz> I don't want to drag you too far off topic. I think the two impulses I have are "don't waste XP on temporary boosts [training evo]" and "don't waste consumables when you don't have to [using consumables before the final battle, when you don't know how much more game there is (more of a newbie problem IOW)]"
01:22:00 <alexjurkiewicz> wow, I managed to close the quotes properly. go my short term memory
01:22:03 <PleasingFungus> i think it's an interesting topic and i'm probably going to sleep soon and let my shatterthoughts digest
01:22:04 <PleasingFungus> good job!
01:22:19 <PleasingFungus> so no worries about going 'off topic' anyway
01:56:28 <travis-ci> The build passed. (shattersphere - d80106d #12645 : Nicholas Feinberg): https://travis-ci.org/crawl/crawl/builds/648758691
03:23:14 <Rotatell> Unstable branch on crawl.beRotato.org updated to: 0.25-a0-492-g44cc58d (34)
03:51:25 <Bcadren> I'm just trying to wait around for confirm that my fork updates successfully. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't; but I pushed a lot at once
03:55:09 <Kelbell> Fork (bcadrencrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.22.1-2000-g9fea150f99
03:56:11 <Bcadren> Yay! :D  :D  :D  Chaos magic is live y'all! Peace ouuut! *goes immediately to sleep*
04:09:07 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_
04:14:45 <Kelbell> Fork (gooncrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.22-a0-963-g920537fecb
06:45:11 <aidanh> alexjurkiewicz: thanks! code coverage looks pretty sweet too, thanks for getting that working
06:47:34 <aidanh> Yermak: I haven't pushed any changes to webtiles in a long time, but I'll have a look
08:03:10 <ebering> !tell PleasingFungus nnnoooooo more targeters :<
08:03:11 <Sequell> ebering: OK, I'll let pleasingfungus know.
08:13:22 <Cheibriados> 03theJollySin02 {ebering} 07* 0.25-a0-493-g147f899: New arrival vaults 10(5 weeks ago, 2 files, 178+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/147f8997027c
08:13:22 <Cheibriados> 03theJollySin02 {ebering} 07* 0.25-a0-494-gde76ec3: Document an arrival vault guideline (ebering) 10(5 weeks ago, 1 file, 2+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/de76ec36f10e
08:13:22 <Cheibriados> 03theJollySin02 {ebering} 07* 0.25-a0-495-g8e6394d: Fix an outdated file reference in a comment 10(5 weeks ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/8e6394d6b4b2
08:17:32 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.25-a0-495-g8e6394d6b4 (34)
08:40:14 <Cheibriados> Oklob and plant is immune to Datura, but a probability check on the screen. 13https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=12197 by sdynet
10:48:29 <Rotatell> flyingllamaman (L27 FoFi) ASSERT(isnormal(n)) in 'ray.cc' at line 189 failed. (Depths:3)
10:55:07 <Cheibriados> 03kate-02 {GitHub} 07* 0.25-a0-496-g8c4878d: Fix some changelog typos 10(8 seconds ago, 1 file, 7+ 7-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/8c4878dea304
11:02:47 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.25-a0-496-g8c4878dea3 (34)
11:17:39 <Cheibriados> 03PleasingFungus02 07[shattersphere] * 0.25-a0-493-ga36353c: Don't train evo for shatterspheres 10(39 seconds ago, 1 file, 11+ 9-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/a36353c4415e
11:17:44 <Cheibriados> Branch pull/1282 updated to be equal with shattersphere: 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1282
11:22:13 <aidanh> i'll have a look at patching lua tomorrow sometime; shouldn't be too difficult
11:22:25 <aidanh> re limiting official support for online versions, that's something i'd be in favour of
11:23:18 <Lantell> Stable (0.23) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23.1-91-gf373564dc4
11:26:40 <aidanh> i was thinking about SSO recently, specifically the name clashing problem
11:27:50 <aidanh> one workaround is to just disallow registering a new sso account name if there are accounts with different emails
11:28:42 <aidanh> and then, once you've successfully registered an sso account, the sso server will make accounts on all of the servers at once
11:29:48 <aidanh> so something like a two-phase commit
11:30:18 <aidanh> one flaw with this is that all the servers have to be in the two-phase commit, otherwise you could get conflicts if a server joins later
11:31:09 <aidanh> so the challenge then becomes making it really easy for server ops to add the APIs needed for this two-phase commit
11:32:48 <aidanh> i think it should be possible to open an encrypted websocket connection even on servers that don't yet support https
11:34:05 <aidanh> so that's one way to deploy a SSO-enabled webtiles with minimal bothering of server ops (restarting webtiles, basically)
11:35:10 <aidanh> cdo, of course, doesn't have a webtiles server, so something would need to be done for that, but fiddling with one server is a lot better than fiddling with all of them
13:41:28 <advil> I think codecov might be misconfigured
13:42:00 <advil> I just posted a comment (complaining about it) in the shattersphere PR and it apparently replied to that comment with a new report
13:42:20 <advil> would prefer if no bots at all posted in our repo, overall
13:42:45 <advil> does it have a badge setting? I.e. like the travis CI badge that is in the readme
13:45:44 <advil> aidanh: here's an idea I have had: treat crawl accounts as federated but in a unified namespace, and have a public/private key method for verifying that distinct accounts are shared by the same owner. (Probably still with a centralized server that tracks that)
13:46:32 <advil> so existing accounts become advil@cbro and advil@cko etc, and then I use my existing login credentials for those accounts to paste a verifying key string, which lets someone conclude that they have the same owner
13:46:42 <advil> (could be simplified a bit from the user's point of view)
15:20:20 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-494-g3acd642: Disable Codecov pull request comments 10(7 minutes ago, 1 file, 1+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/3acd642545ec
15:20:20 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-495-gecad82c: Exclude catch2-tests/ from coverage data 10(2 minutes ago, 1 file, 1+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/ecad82c07f94
15:20:42 <alexjurkiewicz> advil: ^ as requested
15:21:09 <advil> thanks
15:22:26 <advil> did you see that even with commenting on it was probably overdoing it for some reason?
15:25:06 <alexjurkiewicz> in the default configuration, it comments once per push, basically
15:25:27 <advil> it apparently responded to my comment in that PR thread with a repeat of the last report
15:25:54 <advil> though it was posting under two usernames (yours and an official-looking one), so not sure exactly what was happening
15:26:06 <alexjurkiewicz> a newer report, but with essentially identical content (since coverage didn't change). Yeah I'm not sure why it posted as me either...
15:26:35 <gammafunk> always knew alexjurkiewicz was a bot
15:29:53 <advil> not sure how to interpret this test failure: https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281/checks?check_run_id=439501373
15:30:12 <advil> (do these new github tests have a restart button? not seeing it if so)
15:33:00 <alexjurkiewicz> should be in the top right of the test area for repo admins
15:33:10 <advil> I just see a cancel button there
15:33:12 <alexjurkiewicz> that looks like I misread lcov options
15:33:26 <alexjurkiewicz> hm, cancel button would imply the test is still running
15:34:09 <advil> one of the other ones is
15:34:16 <advil> so maybe you can only globally restart
15:34:24 <alexjurkiewicz> you should see it just above the black "terminal" area as a drop down (horizontally aligned with the commit message)
15:35:29 <advil> yes, now that the cross-compile build is done I can see a "re-run jobs" button
15:36:41 <alexjurkiewicz> i don't think ccache is working for cross compile or mac build, btw. It's on my list to investigate
15:37:16 <advil> ccache for the cross-compile build may be challenging
15:37:23 <advil> I definitely didn't get that working for travis
15:38:05 <alexjurkiewicz> it should be working. In that I added symlinks for the cross compiler to the ccache directory. But there may be something funny going on, like the compiler name not being what I expect
15:38:41 <advil> `Cache not found for input keys: ccache-mingw64, ccache-mingw64`
15:39:24 <alexjurkiewicz> after one run in the repo it should have populated by now...
15:39:25 <advil> similar for the mac build
15:40:13 <advil> actually there seem to be ccache errors for all the builds on that PR at least
15:40:33 <advil> if it's anything like travis, you can't expect too much out of ccache for small PRs though
15:40:44 <alexjurkiewicz> there might be cache restrictions for PR builds
15:40:49 <advil> yeah
15:41:12 <alexjurkiewicz> could implement our own cache. But the CI runner time is free
15:41:12 <advil> travis will do them sometimes, but sometimes it deletes those caches when it runs up against space limits, I think
15:41:54 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-496-g809dcfb: fixup! Exclude catch2-tests/ from coverage data 10(5 minutes ago, 1 file, 7+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/809dcfbcaf37
15:41:54 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-497-g26dbeff: s/coveralls/codecov/ 10(3 minutes ago, 1 file, 2+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/26dbeff7e24a
15:42:06 <alexjurkiewicz> actually... there's a quite small limit for github actions cache. maybe only 2gb. I was looking into that for work (where we wanted a 4gb cache)
15:43:00 <alexjurkiewicz> There is no limit on the number of caches you can store, but the total size of all caches in a repository is limited to 5 GB. If you exceed this limit, GitHub will save your cache but will begin evicting caches until the total size is less than 5 GB.
15:43:19 <advil> ah this would hit that limit quickly
15:43:33 <alexjurkiewicz> i wonder how big a crawl ccache is. Probably need to tune cccache limits at least to evict old stuff
15:44:25 <advil> it may be based on error messages that ccache isn't working right at all
15:44:49 <advil> though it could also be that the caches never exist at the right time
15:45:40 <advil> on master I always so thoses "cache not found for input keys" msgs but in the post-cache line, it says the cache exists
15:45:57 <advil> that's true for mac and cross-compile also, fwiw
15:46:11 <advil> *always see those
15:49:42 <advil> also, if we're switching to these github actions I wonder if it could be a good time to slim down what is built and switch some of it to automate the release packaging
15:51:30 <advil> could use my backblaze b2 account for it
15:52:01 <advil> though I probably wouldn't keep all trunk builds for all time the way cdo does
16:12:14 <alexjurkiewicz> yep. You can build release packages quite easily
16:12:33 <alexjurkiewicz> github actions can run a separate workflow file whenever a tag is created, or when a github release is created
16:13:36 <alexjurkiewicz> about the implications of uploading coverage data from failed runs. It doesn't really have much impact. But it means if you upload something with unit test failures, you'll still see if coverage increases/decreases
16:39:55 -!- amalloy_ is now known as amalloy
18:02:08 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-498-g37e10e0: fixup! fixup! Exclude catch2-tests/ from coverage data 10(70 seconds ago, 1 file, 0+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/37e10e034962
18:23:54 <Lantell> Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.25-a0-496-g8c4878dea3 (34)
18:34:31 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-499-gf822263: fixup! fixup! fixup! Exclude catch2-tests/ from coverage data 10(13 hours ago, 1 file, 6+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/f822263c449e
18:34:31 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-500-g0d8c3e9: Display ccache config per-build 10(12 hours ago, 1 file, 24+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/0d8c3e998052
18:55:55 <Cheibriados> 03kate-02 07* 0.25-a0-497-gcd06b9e: Improve handling of skills for manual acquirement 10(26 hours ago, 1 file, 11+ 10-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/cd06b9e333ca
18:55:55 <Cheibriados> 03kate-02 07* 0.25-a0-498-gfae6501: Remove incorrect Xom pronouns 10(42 minutes ago, 1 file, 4+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/fae6501f5f2a
18:55:55 <Cheibriados> 03kate-02 07* 0.25-a0-499-g34b160f: Adjust some unrand descriptions 10(41 minutes ago, 1 file, 2+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/34b160fbb865
19:01:25 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-501-gd96c107: fixup! Display ccache config per-build 10(12 hours ago, 1 file, 14+ 4-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/d96c107f0039
19:02:08 <gammafunk> kate-: hrm, would it be better to add xom, veh, and no god to invo_skill() under the the case that returns SK_NONE?
19:02:59 <gammafunk> for _skill_useless_with_god(), which calls invo_skill(), instead of having those three as part of the condition separately
19:03:00 <theJollySin> @ebering Shame about the Robe of Augmentation PR. OH well.  I was wondering what is up with the Robe of Misfortune? What do we like about that item?
19:03:12 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.25-a0-499-g34b160fbb8 (34)
19:03:49 <kate-> gammafunk: it might be yeah, although that would still then require some special-casing in _get_god_misc_info()
19:04:10 <kate-> since that would then start claiming that xom and veh's abilities require piety instead of invo i think
19:04:54 <gammafunk> oh yeah, I see
19:06:05 <kate-> it could also be worth rethinking that bit of manual acquirement entirely? just adjusting weights rather than considering them strictly useless is a bit inconsistent with how acquirement generally works i think (but also it would be wrong to consider them strictly useless, i guess)
19:08:00 <kate-> but maybe it can just rely on the already-existing skill weighting? like, if you convert to veh with a bunch of invocations skill and are more likely to acquire an invo manual as a result that's probably fine
19:10:05 <kate-> the weird different ways different types of acquirements weight your skills is a whole big mess to get into i suppose! staves have their own separate implementation that just cares about your highest skill and nothing else i think, which also isn't great maybe
19:16:53 <theJollySin> If anyone saw my little Robe of Augmentation bit earlier today, and has an opinion, I'll be around.
19:40:46 <Cheibriados> 03gammafunk02 07* 0.25-a0-500-ge26b6a5: Some changelog trimming (PleasingFungus) 10(3 minutes ago, 1 file, 3+ 13-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/e26b6a5e7fa3
19:44:22 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_
19:47:49 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.25-a0-500-ge26b6a5e7f (34)
20:02:38 <ebering> theJollySin: I don't like to use "we" when discussing crawl development decisions in general conversations; I'll use it when I mean to speak on behalf of the devteam but I also try not to do that since we're a heterogeneous bunch
20:02:38 <ebering> theJollySin: re misfortune, the reason gammafunk and I liked it was summarized in the commit message that revised it
20:02:38 <ebering> %git 103bc3
20:02:38 <Cheibriados> 07ebering02 * 0.23-a0-331-g103bc38: Revise the robe of Misfortune (gammafunk) 10(1 year, 4 months ago, 2 files, 4+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/103bc38328fb
20:03:02 <ebering> is it better than archmagi for a robes user? probably not... but for certain characters it might be worth the risk/consideration
20:04:19 <ebering> it's easy to reason about Harm as a "jank archmagi"; unlike the amulet version this one can't be pulled off in an instant when it becomes inconvenient. In exchange for this riskier archmagi-esque ego the robe gives better defenses than archmagi
20:04:55 <ebering> iirc in our reimagining of misfortune we started with the idea of "unlucky confluence" and tried to make an item that would accentuate the swingyness of crawl combat
20:08:54 <theJollySin> Okay.  I guess.
20:09:51 <theJollySin> I'm not 100% sure of having non-awesome unrandarts. Since the randarts can be truly awful already. There's no lack of useless, terrible gear being randomly generated.
20:09:58 <theJollySin> BUT okay, I see the logic.
20:11:00 <theJollySin> I think it would be funnier to put one really high-demand stat on the Robe of Misfortune to see if players would willing make the decision to wear it.
20:11:29 <theJollySin> rMut or some such *awesome* thing, to rope players into doing it to themselves.  But, anyway.
20:12:27 <theJollySin> I like the idea of Robe of Augmentation being based on Quicksilver Dragon Scales. I'll think about how to make those generate interesting choices.
20:13:28 <theJollySin> Or we could keep there +x to all stats idea, and having them permanently slow the player, name them after Chei.
20:13:38 <theJollySin> Like the Ponderous Plate, I suppose, but with benefits.
20:15:37 <ebering> if it's going to be called a robe its base type should be a robe
20:15:48 <ebering> removal is also often a good idea
20:15:52 <ebering> https://github.com/crawl/crawl/wiki/Unrand-Review
20:17:06 <ebering> I suggest you check in with this page and look at the previous changes to get a sense of the direction we're aiming for
20:20:16 <ebering> giving augmentation bigger plusses is one direction
20:21:22 <ebering> another possibility would be to give it *Drain or some other swap penalty and also something in line with demonspawn's augmentation mutation (the robe of the vines already uses the give a species mut as an item concept, and it does pretty well)
20:22:37 <theJollySin> I mean, going in the Chei direction, something like +6 to stats, but also Ponderous.
20:23:14 <theJollySin> But, it could also be more interesting, someone suggested having it generate a Shroud of Golubria on hit.  Or a fog/smoke would be handy, and more interesting than stats.
20:23:46 <theJollySin> As I guessed, content changes are somewhat contentious. But still interesting, to see the process.
20:24:14 <theJollySin> And I'm working on cleaning up those arrival vaults, in the mean time.
20:25:01 <ebering> There's already a fog unrand (cloak of the thief). Generating a shroud isn't super compelling because shroud isn't super compelling
20:25:27 <theJollySin> Oh, the cloak. Right.
20:26:02 <ebering> The general rule with crawl spitballing is most ideas trip on one stumbling block or another; it's part of the process
20:26:24 -!- amalloy_ is now known as amalloy
20:27:07 <theJollySin> Well, unrelatedly, I now realize we have '+9 Ponderous Plate armor', which would be a lot more compelling with some +stats, as that is the more interesting trade-off people make for Chei.
20:27:33 <theJollySin> BUT, ideas are not expensive timewise, so I'm fine with that. Thanks, man.
21:04:52 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_
21:50:21 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-502-ge848c62: fixup! fixup! Display ccache config per-build 10(5 minutes ago, 1 file, 16+ 16-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/e848c62d2f9e
21:50:21 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-503-gc3ca1b2: Add size limits to ccache 10(5 minutes ago, 1 file, 40+ 10-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/c3ca1b22ae10
21:50:21 <Cheibriados> 03Alex Jurkiewicz02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1281 * 0.25-a0-504-gd48ef45: fixup! fixup! fixup! fixup! Exclude catch2-tests/ from coverage data 10(4 minutes ago, 1 file, 3+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/d48ef45ecf98
21:51:34 <PleasingFungus> ...were boomerangs initially called "throwing batons"?
21:51:35 <Sequell> PleasingFungus: You have 1 message. Use !messages to read it.
21:51:47 <gammafunk> no...at least not that I heard
21:51:53 <gammafunk> ebering would probably be the person to ask
21:52:08 <gammafunk> ebering: reveal you secrets! ^
21:52:08 <PleasingFungus> they're alphabetically sorted in dat/descript/items.txt where "throwing baton" would be
21:52:24 <gammafunk> throwing boomerang?
21:52:33 <PleasingFungus> and also, for some reason, they're described as "throwing batons", which is not really what i would call a boomerang
21:52:39 <gammafunk> oh
21:52:53 <gammafunk> this is secret lore, clearly
21:53:22 <gammafunk> boomerang was chosen in part because of the desire to have a throwable with innate returning, and to then remove that as a random ego
21:53:24 <ebering> I think I didn't update the description from tomahawk
21:53:50 <ebering> also boomerang was chosen because it is australian and therfore Loreful and Good
21:54:06 <gammafunk> interesting, so whoever throwing axe to tomahawk was thinking throwing baton?
21:54:12 <gammafunk> it was throwing axe, wasn't it?
21:54:15 <gammafunk> ??throwing axe
21:54:16 <Sequell> I don't have a page labeled throwing_axe in my learndb.
21:54:19 <gammafunk> maybe it wasn't
21:54:47 <gammafunk> maybe it just came into the world as tomahawk since someone wanted a new throwable in between darts and javs
22:01:54 <PleasingFungus> i think so, yeah
22:02:19 <PleasingFungus> wasn't it around the time that throwing normal weapons was removed? (e.g. hand axes and spears)
22:02:31 <gammafunk> that sounds right
22:06:11 <PleasingFungus> anyway, i should've guessed tomahawk, rip
22:06:42 <PleasingFungus> anyone who hates shatterspheres should say so now btw
22:08:05 <gammafunk> I haven't looked in detail, but it seemed reasonable at first glance. I do continue to wonder if we might remove an evocable item
22:08:18 <gammafunk> wand of random effects is 'fun', but is kind of just an annoying item
22:09:32 <PleasingFungus> i'm planning on reducing inventory load slightly with my next pr
22:09:36 <PleasingFungus> stay tuned
22:11:34 <ebering> PleasingFungus: I have some hatreds (no more targeters!)
22:11:42 <PleasingFungus> i saw your message
22:12:06 <ebering> also if you add them remove /scattershot
22:12:06 <PleasingFungus> but i didn't understand
22:12:12 <PleasingFungus> what's the deal with targeters
22:12:16 <Psymania> I rarely use wand of random effects, but I even more rarely use wand of polymorph
22:13:05 <Psymania> I guess maybe if I took the time to learn what they work beneficially on and what they don't, then maybe I'd use them
22:13:21 <PleasingFungus> something something 'hd' 'spoilers'
22:15:01 <ebering> PleasingFungus: One of the goals of positional magic was to reduce the reliance on funny targeting patterns
22:15:19 <ebering> since targeting can be done for 0 tactical cost but takes a lot of button presses to pick the "best" target
22:15:56 <gammafunk> a bit more of a priority for spells that you cast over an over
22:16:02 <ebering> sure
22:16:05 <gammafunk> wands you also use a good deal
22:16:18 <gammafunk> I guess one upside to this item is that you probably won't use it more than like 3 times a game
22:16:28 <gammafunk> I assume it won't be especially common
22:16:32 <PleasingFungus> yeah
22:17:43 <gammafunk> if a non-targeted version of an item/spell can be gottem away with that achieves a similar level of tactical depth, though, that's ideal
22:17:52 <Cheibriados> 03PleasingFungus02 07[shattersphere] * 0.25-a0-501-g299d110: New single-use item: Tremorstone 10(22 hours ago, 13 files, 163+ 30-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/299d11061411
22:17:57 <Cheibriados> Branch pull/1282 updated to be equal with shattersphere: 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1282
22:18:07 <gammafunk> not sure if that's the case here since I don't understand the targeter yet
22:18:18 <Cheibriados> 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.25-a0-501-g299d110: New single-use item: Tremorstone 10(22 hours ago, 13 files, 163+ 30-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/299d11061411
22:18:35 <gammafunk> ah...the stone of tremors returns!
22:18:50 <PleasingFungus> i thought the shattersphere themeing was very lazy (it's a magic grenade)
22:19:06 <ebering> the truth comes out
22:19:12 <gammafunk> but think of the quotes from Monty Python we could use!
22:19:16 <PleasingFungus> "it's an earth elemental in the shape of a stone that, when disturbed, gets so mad that it literally explodes" seems a lot more fun
22:19:21 <PleasingFungus> you can still do that if you want... no one will stop you
22:19:41 <ebering> anyway I would like to take a day or two to think about doing a similar effect without a targeter
22:19:59 <PleasingFungus> ooh, very curious about how that would work
22:20:01 <PleasingFungus> sounds cool
22:20:12 <gammafunk> well he just merged it, so I guess you can have more than a day or two!
22:20:14 <PleasingFungus> would it just blow up something near you (and also possibly you) at random?
22:20:26 <PleasingFungus> i can unmerge it... there's still time. i don't think anything's rebuilt yet
22:20:31 <ebering> heh
22:20:59 <ebering> I misread that as the pull request thing that advil had fixed a while ago
22:21:16 <PleasingFungus> i have weird pull request merging habits from work
22:21:29 <gammafunk> you have to sync your pull request before a merge?
22:21:34 <ebering> well then
22:21:40 <PleasingFungus> yeah, then it'll show up nicely in github
22:22:00 <PleasingFungus> https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/1282 shows up as 'merged' even though i never clicked anything in the UI
22:22:08 <PleasingFungus> and even though it was all rebases
22:22:12 <PleasingFungus> extremely advanced
22:22:12 <ebering> fancy
22:22:16 <gammafunk> oh, neat
22:22:23 <gammafunk> also lol at the alexjurkiewicz bot responding to it
22:22:25 <ebering> here's me living in the stone age of [ Closes #nnnn ]
22:22:51 <PleasingFungus> one of the senior engineers on our team insists we do things this way, which is kind of a pain but it is very tidy
22:22:58 <gammafunk> haha, I love the bit where advil says "ok, so this codecov thing seems cool in principle but multiple comments in a single PR thread (or any github comments at all, tbh) is a bit excessive..."
22:23:02 <PleasingFungus> yes
22:23:06 <PleasingFungus> i ended up writing layers of git shortcuts to make it easier
22:23:09 <gammafunk> immediate response? alexjurkiewicz bot with code coverge
22:23:58 <gammafunk> it reminds me of the great early days of travis in irc
22:24:27 <gammafunk> that always did annoy me about closing PRs in github comments
22:24:49 <gammafunk> it just shows status as 'closed' even though I did a rebase/merge
22:29:22 <PleasingFungus> https://pastebin.com/37ivtt7w if you plop this into your ~/.gitconfig (assuming you're not on windows, I don't know where it lives there), then 'git rbm' while on a branch that you want to cleanly rebase into master will do the trick
22:30:07 <ebering> alexjurkiewicz: or gammafunk the remote storage of cpo ttyrecs works with footv but !lg name -ttyrec does not work
22:31:36 <gammafunk> !lg * cpo -ttyrec
22:31:46 <Sequell> 209098. jonnos, XL8 MiFi, T:4862: Can't find ttyrec: Could not fetch directory listing from https://crawl.project357.org/ttyrec/jonnos/
22:32:33 <alexjurkiewicz> that's weird, because the URL works
22:33:53 <alexjurkiewicz> the directory listing is made dynamically (and cached for a little bit of time), there are two weird parts that might cause issues: 1) you might see the same ttyrec duplicated, potentially even in both raw and compressed forms 2) the initial generation of a page can take >30secs for players with big history
22:35:08 <alexjurkiewicz> I don't really understand how ttyrec generation/indexing/retrieval works. Maybe it's some issue with mismatch from the morgue ttyrec index file? Which I also don't understand anything about
22:36:07 <gammafunk> something I can as snark about
22:40:33 <Cheibriados> 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.25-a0-502-g6516661: Re-alphabetize items.txt 10(15 seconds ago, 1 file, 14+ 14-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/6516661a7aa4
22:50:06 <PleasingFungus> !learn add tremorstone One-use evocable that does 6d12 frag damage (triple-reduced by AC) in a 5x5 area. It'll randomly land adjacent to the tile you targeted, and there's always a chance it'll hit you, but 20-25 AC should keep you pretty safe.
22:50:06 <Sequell> tremorstone[1/1]: One-use evocable that does 6d12 frag damage (triple-reduced by AC) in a 5x5 area. It'll randomly land adjacent to the tile you targeted, and there's always a chance it'll hit you, but 20-25 AC should keep you pretty safe.
22:56:13 <PleasingFungus> !learn e tremorstone[1 s/pretty/relatively
22:56:14 <Sequell> tremorstone[1/1]: One-use evocable that does 6d12 frag damage (triple-reduced by AC) in a 5x5 area. It'll randomly land adjacent to the tile you targeted, and there's always a chance it'll hit you, but 20-25 AC should keep you relatively safe.
22:58:11 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.25-a0-501-g299d110614 (34)
23:03:07 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.25-a0-502-g6516661a7a (34)
23:38:23 <ebering> advil: I know you're sick of moderating but if you (or someone else with ##crawl) ops could set +b on Leo_Littlebook that would probably be for the best
23:39:09 <ebering> it's a few short clicks from his crawl website to (tw mega racism) content advocating segragating north america along racial lines &c.
23:39:22 <ebering> I can send links in pm I'd prefer we didn't link to them from the logs for -dev
23:42:37 <gammafunk> ebering: is he advertising said website in the channel?
23:44:11 <gammafunk> I can set the ban certainly, but we have historically banned only for reasons related to ??language, which advertising content like you describe would follow from that
23:44:56 <ebering> gammafunk: he's advertising his crawl website