00:31:34 -!- ophanim1 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 00:42:06 Rakshasa illusions can use items (https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=4047) by b0rsuk 01:04:34 -!- valrus has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:09:44 -!- Zaba has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 01:18:46 -!- Zaba has joined ##crawl-dev 02:11:58 -!- Pseudonut has joined ##crawl-dev 02:20:02 -!- elliptic has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 02:27:32 Icelos (L3 MuWz) (D:2) 02:35:16 -!- monqy has quit [Quit: hello] 02:40:09 -!- bmh_away has quit [Quit: bmh_away] 02:42:43 monster's staff changes on death (https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=4048) by nubinia 02:51:57 -!- galehar has joined ##crawl-dev 03:38:51 -!- edlothiol has joined ##crawl-dev 03:53:34 Pseudonut the Necromancer (L25 MuAK) ASSERT(y >= 1 && y <= sz.y) in 'libutil.cc' at line 848 failed on turn 114517. (Shoals:1) 04:29:50 -!- galehar has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 04:41:32 Hilariusah (L1 KoSt) (D:1) 04:46:28 -!- ais523 has joined ##crawl-dev 04:58:26 -!- ais523 has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:59:41 -!- ais523 has joined ##crawl-dev 05:05:43 -!- galehar has joined ##crawl-dev 05:07:43 -!- ais523 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 05:09:55 -!- ais523 has joined ##crawl-dev 05:22:22 -!- ais523 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 05:22:48 -!- ais523 has joined ##crawl-dev 05:38:33 -!- Guest27590 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 05:38:38 -!- Guest27590 has joined ##crawl-dev 05:38:55 tornado deals irresistible damage, and it also ignores AC 05:42:26 I don't think it should. AC even protects against cloud damage. 05:42:26 yeah, making it not ignore AC i think is probably one of the best/easiest ways to nerf the damage 05:42:26 -!- Ashenzari has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 05:43:06 -!- Ashenzari has joined ##crawl-dev 05:43:06 -!- The topic of ##crawl-dev is: DCSS Development | Logs: http://tozt.net/crawl | People with +v have commit access. | Please keep general crawl-related chit-chat to ##crawl. | Dev wiki: http://crawl.develz.org/wiki | Long stuff to pastebin.ca please | Immortal Warwalrus and Crazy Yiuf forever. 05:43:06 duration is 40+pow/6 05:44:15 at 120 power, fire storms deals 8d15 which averages at 65, but is 35% resistible (and AC) 05:50:14 base damage of fire cloud is : random2avg(16, 3) + 6. Average 13.5 (resistible and AC) 05:51:58 so even against a non-resisting and non-AC monster, you only need 2 turns of tornado to beat fire storm. 06:03:41 halving the damage means it will still deal twice as much damage as fire storm over the 6 turns. 06:03:59 well, you can cast fire storm six times in six turns 06:04:33 so i think it's fine for tornado to be more efficient in terms of damage per casting, that's sort of the point of it 06:04:45 but yeah, some kind of fairly significant reduction sounds reasonable nevertheless 06:06:58 if we half the damage, it will still be more efficient. twice more (irresistible) damage. 06:08:06 how much impact would applying AC too have? i think that'd be a good thing to do as well, since it doesn't really make much sense for it to ignore AC 06:19:21 -!- syllogism has joined ##crawl-dev 06:21:23 it depends on monsters. High AC monsters have 20 I think. Cerebov has 30. So by just applying an AC of 20, damage per turn is reduced by 10 to 29 for a total of 174. Compared to firestom 55 (36 resisted). 06:22:23 doing both would be too much though. 06:22:43 yeah 06:28:14 oups, I made a little mistake. 6d(pow)/10 isn't the same as 6d(pow/10). Average damage per turn is 36.3, not 39. 06:28:43 total 217.8. With AC20 -> 26.3/turn, total 157.8 06:29:25 so about 3x fire storm 06:29:57 shouldn't we aim for 2x fire storm for total damage over 6 turns? 06:30:49 hm, sounds reasonable 06:31:26 easy enough to try it and keep tweaking, if need be 06:33:14 -!- Textmode has joined ##crawl-dev 06:33:46 -!- Pseudonut has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:36:01 a 20% reduction to base damage should do it. 6d(power)/12. Average is 30, reduced to 20 with AC, total 120. 06:37:01 180 against monsters with no AC. 06:37:11 kilobyte: around? 06:44:17 -!- elliptic has joined ##crawl-dev 06:45:01 hi elliptic! 06:48:14 hi! 06:49:11 we were just talking about tornado's damage 06:49:21 care to read the backlog and give us your opinion? 06:51:31 I forget, how do I read the backlog? 06:53:23 elliptic: http://tozt.net/crawl 06:53:25 there's a link in the topic 06:53:45 oh, right, thanks :) 06:55:38 I seem to remember kilobyte felt that tornado should ignore AC for some flavour reason 06:56:16 I agree though that having it be unresistible and undodgeable and AC-ignoring is bad 06:56:20 shouldn't be all three :) 06:57:07 there is also some question about the mechanics of applying the AC, since tornado does varying damage each turn depending on the duration of the turn 06:57:32 hmm, that's right. 06:58:00 I guess you apply AC to the duration 10 number and only then scale the damage for the real duration, or something like that 06:58:12 I don't actually know what clouds do about this 06:58:44 I'll have a look 06:59:37 IMO best would be to reduce actual damage substantially (2x fire storm damage over 6 turns sounds reasonable, or it could go lower) and revert the weird thing with tornado giving a negative spell enhancer for all your spells while in effect 07:00:46 comparing the actual damage to fire storm is a bit tricky of course, I see lots of numbers in the backlog but of course it depends on stuff like AC and resists 07:01:18 If we apply AC, then the relative damage to fire storm depend on monster's AC. With my proposal, it's 2x firestom against AC20 and 3x firestom against AC0 07:01:44 and don't forget that tornado still has a larger radius of effect than firestorm :) 07:02:10 as I said, I think kilobyte didn't feel like tornado should be weak against AC 07:02:26 so I'd be hesitant in making it that AC-dependent 07:03:30 <+elliptic> I agree though that having it be unresistible and undodgeable and AC-ignoring is bad 07:03:32 at least, it would be strange if an earth spell (LRD) and an air spell (tornado) were the two most AC-dependent spells :) 07:03:40 we can't really remove one of the other 2 07:04:01 yeah, I just don't think the AC dependence should be larger than that of firestorm or whatever 07:04:13 best if it was 2x firestorm against any AC 07:04:39 obviously this is a matter of how the AC reduction is actually working 07:07:08 I don't see how it would be possible. Making AC effectiveness depend on spell duration is very weird. 07:07:46 well, at duration 6 turns or whatever 07:08:04 or whatever the duration is at 100 power 07:08:31 5.6 07:09:18 I think balancing it for 6 turns (at power 120) is reasonable. 07:09:42 so you could make the damage reduction from AC be the usual random2(AC+1) or whatever on average over 3 turns 07:09:52 so over 6 turns, AC would get applied twice 07:09:54 something like that 07:10:20 wouldn't depend on spell duration 07:10:32 -!- edlothiol has left ##crawl-dev 07:10:47 ok, I'll run some numbers and see what I can work out 07:32:56 6d(power)/15 with 2xAC over 6 turns. Average base damage per turn is 24.2. Against AC0, total is 145 (FS is 65 or 42 resisted). Against AC20, total is 125 (FS is 55, 32 resisted). 07:33:05 (FS damage doesn't count cloud damage) 07:35:41 this is a reduction of 1/3 of the base damage. 07:40:40 it could probably be nerfed further but that sounds like a good start to me :) 07:41:22 don't forget that this is the best case, ie: full radius 07:41:37 if walls reduce the tornado, damage is reduced. 07:41:58 yeah, usually you can avoid that though 07:42:11 -!- Cryp71c has joined ##crawl-dev 07:43:08 6d(power)/16. base damage per turn: 22.6. Total 135 (115 against AC20) 07:47:05 6d(pow)/18 -> 20.1/turn. Total 121 (101 against AC20). 08:00:25 -!- ZorbaBeta has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:00:42 -!- ZorbaBeta has joined ##crawl-dev 08:37:29 I've made a spreadsheet 08:37:31 https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0AqvhLOPFHpiMdE1oRUx5UzhUNXRMX1ZRU1ppZGpkcFE&output=html 08:38:28 the fire storm damage varies a lot with AC if you take into account cloud damage 08:58:54 the firestorm resisted damage is for rF+++, right? 08:59:26 I think it is best not to worry about the cloud when comparing damage 08:59:48 or at least you should just count one turn of the cloud 08:59:57 since firestorm is mainly about single-turn damage 09:00:01 -!- edlothiol has joined ##crawl-dev 09:01:06 for purposes of comparison, what is n for tornado currently? 09:08:06 -!- st_ has joined ##crawl-dev 09:21:07 -!- edlothiol has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 09:41:27 I think tornado should get nerfed to something like 1/3 damage 09:41:35 because it is present over such a large area 09:51:35 elliptic: n is 10 i think 09:51:50 oh, wow 09:52:08 so currently tornado does 218 damage total over the 6 turns against any AC 09:52:10 [11:43:03] <+galehar> damage is 6d(power)/10 09:52:10 [11:43:10] <+galehar> duration is 40+pow/6 09:52:14 yeah 09:52:33 [12:28:19] <+galehar> oups, I made a little mistake. 6d(pow)/10 isn't the same as 6d(pow/10). Average damage per turn is 36.3, not 39. 09:52:33 [12:28:47] <+galehar> total 217.8. With AC20 -> 26.3/turn, total 157.8 09:52:33 [12:29:28] <+galehar> so about 3x fire storm 09:52:46 -!- ophanim has joined ##crawl-dev 09:53:09 (that was for if AC were to be applied) 09:53:27 n=15 or 16 or so with AC-checking (and remove the negative enhancer) looks like something reasonable to try 09:53:59 sounds decent, yeah, just a matter of figuring out how best to get it to check AC i guess 09:54:19 oh and you already suggested averaging it over 3 turns 09:54:28 or something? 10:01:28 yes he did 10:01:45 resisted damage is for rF+++ indeed 10:04:20 so currently, power is scaled with time, then damage is 6d(pow)/10 10:05:34 so we can try 6d(pow)/15 - random2(AC/3+1) 10:05:41 then scale the result with time 10:06:43 yeah, that sounds like a reasonable enough way to implement the AC I guess 10:23:04 !tell kilobyte I suggest this for tornado's damage: 6d(pow)/15 - random2(AC/3+1). And remove negative enhancer. See backlog for discussion. What do you think? 10:23:05 galehar: OK, I'll let kilobyte know. 10:23:09 -!- Sequell has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 10:24:15 -!- Sequell has joined ##crawl-dev 10:33:20 -!- ais523 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 10:33:48 -!- ais523 has joined ##crawl-dev 10:46:37 by the way, can we have grey dracs not fumble in water? 10:46:51 -!- edlothiol has joined ##crawl-dev 10:47:28 being able to move through deep water is... rather lackluster as is given that they are slow and can't melee 10:48:45 i was quite tempted to try and implement some sort of petrification cloud, now that there's player petrification too 10:48:55 and rework grey dracs as earth-themed with that 10:49:12 but not having them fumble makes sense for how they work currently at least, yeah 10:49:52 earth-themed drac would be cool, yeah 10:59:35 they can walk in deep water because of unbreathing. They don't swim. 10:59:48 If we make them swim, wouldn't they be too much like merfolk? 11:01:38 anyway, have to go 11:01:45 -!- galehar has quit [Quit: Page closed] 11:07:24 -!- Wensley has joined ##crawl-dev 11:35:48 -!- edlothiol has left ##crawl-dev 11:36:27 -!- edlothiol has joined ##crawl-dev 11:54:40 -!- upsy has joined ##crawl-dev 11:56:15 so I'm using ubuntu for a change, is there a way to make the terminal display the current git branch that you're in, like msysgit does? 12:12:41 there probably is, if msysgit does it somehow 12:13:34 by terminal, do you mean the shell prompt, or the window title, or what? 12:13:55 I don't know what msysgit's like 12:16:10 Wensley: yeah: http://eric.lubow.org/2009/system-administration/git-branch-name-in-your-bash-prompt/ 12:18:21 Chousuke: thanks! 12:19:16 -!- syllogism- has joined ##crawl-dev 12:20:39 -!- syllogism has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 13:34:44 -!- monqy has joined ##crawl-dev 13:37:35 regarding oklobs having "a limited ability to dodge", why do they have 0EV? 14:02:52 -!- ais523 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:14:26 -!- ais523 has joined ##crawl-dev 14:14:32 -!- ais523 has quit [Changing host] 14:14:32 -!- ais523 has joined ##crawl-dev 14:40:52 -!- ophanim is now known as runanim 14:46:47 -!- syllogism- has quit [] 14:49:02 -!- edlothiol has quit [Quit: edlothiol] 14:49:19 -!- edlothiol has joined ##crawl-dev 14:55:43 -!- edlothiol has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 14:58:27 -!- edlothiol has joined ##crawl-dev 15:01:14 -!- casmith789 is now known as crawl 15:04:58 -!- crawl is now known as casmith789 15:10:56 -!- ophanim has joined ##crawl-dev 15:12:31 -!- runanim has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 15:15:19 -!- ophanim has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 15:16:17 -!- ophanim has joined ##crawl-dev 15:24:09 -!- Cryp71c has quit [Quit: Leaving] 15:25:27 -!- bmh has joined ##crawl-dev 15:26:50 -!- Cryp71c has joined ##crawl-dev 15:28:46 -!- Cryp71c has quit [Client Quit] 16:04:05 Stable branch on tiles.crawl.develz.org updated to: 0.8.0-170-g5a2df49 (32) 16:07:00 monqy: 0 EV is different from -inf EV 16:08:11 -!- bmh has quit [Quit: bmh] 16:14:29 by the way: just tried out bmh's abyss, and it's fantastic 16:14:44 I'm gushing 16:15:36 WebtTiles fixed - hopefully 16:15:41 g'night o/ 16:15:46 good night 16:17:43 -!- Kautzman has joined ##crawl-dev 16:27:10 really, I'm having so much fun wandering around the worley abyss, it's so bizarre 16:30:39 -!- Wensley has quit [Quit: Leaving] 16:41:07 -!- Excedrin has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 16:42:09 -!- Excedrin has joined ##crawl-dev 17:03:20 -!- galehar has joined ##crawl-dev 17:03:39 hey 17:07:21 hi 17:13:20 -!- ais523 has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:26:46 -!- upsy has quit [Quit: Leaving] 17:35:20 -!- Kautzman has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 17:35:45 -!- Kautzman has joined ##crawl-dev 17:38:00 -!- Guest27590 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 17:38:18 -!- Guest27590 has joined ##crawl-dev 17:48:38 -!- Wensley has joined ##crawl-dev 18:04:11 I apologize if this is a topic that's been discussed before, but has there ever been talk about smoothing out the first few levels of the game? 18:07:52 how do you mean? 18:08:03 smoothed out in what manner? 18:24:22 there are a number of things in the early portions of the game that are a bit strange 18:24:25 For example 18:24:51 Hobgoblins with basic clubs can two shot casters and even some melee characters with too much of a problem 18:25:14 And the accuracy of everything is relatively low, making combat rather unpredictable 18:25:25 It honestly plays a lot like Final Fantasy I :P 18:26:03 This wouldn't be so much of a problem, but you also have a total of zero tools to deal with things like getting pinched between a hobgoblin and just about anything else 18:26:32 The problem is compounded by the need to kite if you want to preserve the character for whatever reason because HP regen is so slow (Which is fine) 18:27:33 I'm not sure there is a magic bullet to fix it but I honestly believe the first five levels of the game are more difficult to get through than the last 5. 18:27:57 Kautzman: for many combos the early game is likely a death sentence, yes. but not all combos are intended to have an easy time of the early game. 18:29:14 True, and that's fine, but I guess my primary issue I take with the early game is that if and when shit hits the fan, you have very few or zero options to do anything about it other than pray to the gods of the RNG 18:29:37 well it's certainly better to lose that level 3 character than that level 25 character, yes? 18:30:11 I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that this is a part of crawl that I think people would be resistant to change 18:30:26 Kautzman: You *always* have options. 18:30:27 Oh absolutely, and I think the end game is brilliantly done to that end. I don't think I've ever lost characteres post level 15 and couldn't attribute it back to my own faults 18:30:28 I've often seen it argued that the early game is the best part of crawl 18:30:34 Hmm 18:30:41 There are vary rare instances where you do not have options and death is unavoidable. 18:30:56 Egh, I really disagree with that, at least for the first few levels 18:30:56 But most of those related purely to D:1 or D:2, and we don't really have a problem with that. 18:31:03 Right 18:31:05 Dying on D:1, D:2 is common. 18:31:06 you have to be creative with whatever you found 18:31:15 And cheap! 18:32:24 I guess the perception stems from a couple things: PC and NPC accuracy is terrible, making combat unpredictable and Damage proportional to Max HP is really high 18:32:30 Relative to the rest of the game 18:32:50 And really, if it's going to be out of whack anywhere, the beginning is the best part to have that. 18:32:58 Kautzman: breeds interesting situations, which, unfortunately, you are not always able to survive 100% of the time. but much of the fun of the early game is in coping with a limited selection of tools and prioritizing your resources 18:33:04 *randomness breeds 18:33:48 galehar: how does the recent HP change affect early game HP? 18:37:40 Kautzman: There are easy ways to combat it; tryt different combinations, run more, Spriggans, gods, etc. 18:38:16 By the time you get a god, the game has usually stabilized :P 18:39:02 And that's not to say it's unmanagable. The comps characters I'm fimiliar with have a pretty reasonable success rate in the opening of the game. 18:39:19 Wensley: it doesn't. Or very little. Most of the change affect the late game. 18:39:48 kautzman: so what would make the early game better in your opinion? making it so that every game is winnable? that's unlikely to happen, I think 18:39:59 Na, doesn't have to be winnable 18:40:12 Just offer stability to the opening 18:40:45 Maybe start off with 2x the HP, with gains reduced so it's normalized at level 5~ again. 18:40:49 I'm not sure 18:40:55 I think it's a pretty difficult problem to solve 18:41:23 if you started out with 2x the HP, that would make almost every game winnable 18:42:05 -!- galehar has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:42:45 But would that mean that the only 'opportunity' to lose exists in the mid - late game? 18:43:01 no 18:43:28 Err, mis-stated that. Would the only opportunity to lose exist in the current early game? 18:44:16 Kautzman: You're operating on the premise that it should not be possible for you to die in the early game -- whether by inaction, bad decision, or just plain bad luck. 18:44:35 currently early game is responsible for the vast majority of "unavoidable" deaths 18:44:58 And only a small percentage of "unavoidable" deaths are truly unavoidable. 18:45:17 I do think that the d:1 dangers could be toned down a bit somehow, but it is good for the early game to be a bit tricky 18:45:26 due: I think you should be able to die, but I think there should also be some solution to chased by a gnoll pack on D2 18:45:34 I think the early game would probably be improved if early combat skill (fighting, weapons, dodge, armour, etc) was a little more meaningful :) 18:45:41 usually a gnoll pack on d:2 shouldn't kill you, actually :) 18:45:48 Kautzman: Dive? Berserk? Teleportation? 18:45:49 a gnoll pack on d:1, now... 18:46:06 pedjt: it is meaningful! 18:46:16 at least weapon skill is 18:46:22 I don't think you are ever in a bad spot with Berserk :P 18:46:24 elliptic: you are very heavily at the mercy of the rng though! 18:46:33 fighters with long blades are pretty sturdy 18:46:38 it's a roguelike 18:46:48 pedjt: who is? 18:47:00 if we removed all aspects where "random" results in "occasionally unfair" then it would cease to be a roguelike. 18:47:36 Wensley: how is a falchion better than the alternatives? 18:47:48 kilobyte: not sure, I always pick the falchion :P 18:48:10 kilobyte: I'd say falchion is best for fighter, or trident and drop the shield 18:48:21 -!- Textmode has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 18:48:36 due: I agree, but compared to the rest of the game, the beginning is rather unstable. Deaths do not occur in 2 or 3 turns in the late game unless you really messed something up while they aren't that uncommon in the early game 18:48:49 elliptic: there isn't much margin for error, even a small string of bad luck could prove extremely dangerous, eg a hobgoblin or something 18:49:18 Kautzman: I believe the idea is that occasionally-unfair randomness should be present, but that having it in the endgame would be much more annoying 18:49:34 (though I find this depends heavily on whether or not you let them pick up something to throw at you) 18:49:39 Wensley: I can agree with that 18:50:08 There is unfair randomness in the end game, you are just better equipped to handle it. 18:50:08 it is basically impossible to get rid of the luck-dependent nature of d:1 completely unless you make it really easy 18:50:53 elliptic: which also introduces discontinuity between the hardness of D:1 nd everywhere else, making everything else seem harder, etc. 18:51:04 Is that really a bad thing? The only difference between the early game and later parts is that you have few/no escape options 18:51:13 Elliptic: Perhaps, and to that end, maybe it's best it be left alone. But I really do believe there are better solutions. 18:51:15 I do think that a couple of small changes to d:1 would be good... tweaks like eliminating d:1 gnoll packs 18:51:57 yeah... can't do them unless by speed kiting or as a berserker 18:52:12 and Trog is thoroughly, utterly broken 18:52:15 https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:brainstorm:background:Bonus_Gear 18:52:23 I also suggested this though nobody seemed to like it 18:52:37 Berserk is hilariously good 18:52:41 Actually 18:52:47 Every Trog activated ability is really strong 18:52:48 elliptic: don't even need to disable D:1 gnoll packs 18:53:08 elliptic: just reduce band chances/sizes to 0 on absdepth 0, unless spawning as ood. 18:53:23 one gnoll on D:1? fine! 18:53:23 Kautzman: Trog has to make up for not having any casting at all so that is hardly surprising 18:53:37 a berserking stone giant just snuffs in any (potentially hostile!) greater servants or daevas 18:53:40 yeah, one gnoll rarely would be fine 18:53:50 Pedjt: This is very true. 18:54:17 kilobyte: I've seen a berserk troll wipe out a titan in the time it took me to take one action 18:55:08 "yay haste" 18:55:56 haste is getting knocked to 1.5x Speed, yes? 18:56:03 was knocked to 18:58:05 berserk is still extremely powerful in monster form 19:26:16 -!- edlothiol has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 19:52:47 When using the ` key to repeat and action a force_more_message will not trigger. (https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=4049) by LexAckson 20:09:07 let's dump ` 20:18:32 due: it often saves a lot of tedium 20:18:45 and lots of bugs, too 20:24:36 03kilobyte * rea39d5f7f773 10/crawl-ref/source/ (9 files): Store only modifiers to hp/mp rather than the whole value. 20:24:46 03kilobyte * r5703661a310c 10/crawl-ref/source/ (26 files): Untie {inc,set}_{m,h}p() from {inc,set}_max_{m,h}p(). 20:24:46 03kilobyte * rcfca9c0b2490 10/crawl-ref/source/player.cc: Fix pearl dragon hide not providing rN+ like its finished version does. 20:32:50 Pearl dragon hide is supposed to provide +rN? 20:35:17 -!- lorimer has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 20:36:00 I didn't even realize you could wear hide without turning it into armor 20:37:33 you can but their AC sucks and they don't usually provide the resistance/benefit (??) 20:41:53 -!- lorimer has joined ##crawl-dev 20:43:31 Pedjt: the latter used to be true in the past 20:43:53 would be nice if we could start armor-using draconians with a dragon hide rather than a boring robe :P or is that too macabre? 20:44:31 kilobyte: oh I see 20:44:35 it didn't make sense though -- protecting from fire/draining/yellow bunnies comes not from being nicely shaped but from the material 20:44:42 Wensley: Tiamat 20:47:23 is that an endorsement of the idea? 21:02:47 -!- CIA-60 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:15:44 Wensley: that doesn't make sense, also overpowered. 21:15:48 enchant armour scrolls are not *that* rare. 21:27:59 -!- CIA-55 has joined ##crawl-dev 21:29:52 -!- Kautzman1 has joined ##crawl-dev 21:32:47 -!- Kautzman has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:06:43 -!- valrus has joined ##crawl-dev 22:19:29 it wouldn't be overpowered if it were a steam dragon hide or something 22:20:08 not that I think it's a good idea particularily 22:37:56 eh, I just feel like fighters should start with some armor other than robes 22:39:51 but fighters apparently aren't actually defined by being heavy armour guys 22:39:54 see FeFi 23:01:11 midgame air magic is a conj wasteland 23:01:23 oh hi ##dev 23:01:31 (oops) 23:08:03 -!- Henzell has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 23:12:46 -!- Henzell has joined ##crawl-dev 23:14:14 -!- elliptic has quit [*.net *.split] 23:17:20 -!- elliptic has joined ##crawl-dev 23:21:30 -!- OG17 has quit [Quit: OG17] 23:28:04 hm, dpeg should be back sometime soonish 23:30:17 -!- OG17 has joined ##crawl-dev 23:40:01 -!- elly has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 23:44:55 -!- Pedjt has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 23:46:11 -!- Pedjt has joined ##crawl-dev 23:49:06 -!- elly has joined ##crawl-dev