01:55:21 <12ebering> Yes they are 02:22:45 <12ebering> ahhh, I know what happened 02:23:01 <12ebering> well I have a conjecture 02:23:26 <12ebering> it worked for me locally because I didn't drop the old nonhep_wins view when emptying my local test db 02:23:32 <12ebering> possibly the same on cdo 02:23:56 <12ebering> thankfully its a view so you can correct it and scoring will pick up the correction 02:24:31 <09gammafunk> yeah let me fix and reload real quick 03:30:49 Fork (bcrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.23-a0-4217-g7c68dc2372 03:57:06 !tstats 6 t0.26 03:58:36 90s limit exceeded: killed !tstats 6 t0.26 03:58:44 dang 03:58:47 !tstats 6 t0.26 03:58:51 sequelllllll 04:00:17 90s limit exceeded: killed !tstats 6 t0.26 04:04:44 !tstats 04:05:01 Stats after 16 days (t): 1547 players, 450 runers, 250 winners, 614 wins, 24051 games, winrate 2.55%, total player time 1y+42d+6:22:09. 04:06:33 !tstats 6 t0.26 04:06:39 cmon you can do it i believe in u 04:08:03 90s limit exceeded: killed !tstats 6 t0.26 04:10:18 rip 06:23:26 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-4217-g7c68dc2372 10:05:28 !tstats 6 t0.26 10:06:59 90s limit exceeded: killed !tstats 6 t0.26 11:19:17 03ebering02 07* 0.28-a0-81-g2d7b7a1a19: fix: display hit chance in the starburst targeter 10(17 seconds ago, 2 files, 9+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/2d7b7a1a1927 11:39:33 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-81-g2d7b7a1a19 (34) 11:55:08 03ebering02 07* 0.28-a0-82-g70931ec564: fix: update acrobat for quiver-fired wait spells 10(15 seconds ago, 1 file, 1+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/70931ec56455 12:02:37 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-82-g70931ec564 (34) 12:07:54 03advil02 07* 0.28-a0-83-g7c29f1f256: fix: handle multiple SDL key events for numpad `.` 10(4 minutes ago, 2 files, 7+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/7c29f1f256d6 12:09:28 <12ebering> @advil while you're tweaking things, you can probably address this faster than I can. BVC in the quiver will display as fireable when a monster is in los but not in range 12:10:37 <12ebering> (though it does not fizzle and waste a turn when you fire it) 12:11:25 hm in a quick test in local tiles I'm not seeing this 12:16:47 <12ebering> hm let me try and set up a more careful replication 12:17:21 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-83-g7c29f1f256 (34) 12:24:57 <12ebering> hmmm 12:25:26 <12ebering> i can't replicate now but it was bothering me in my games using earth spells 12:29:46 <10PleasingFungus> weird 12:44:17 <06advil> as in, tournament games? 12:44:34 <06advil> I did change BVC quiver behavior a couple months ago 12:45:59 <06advil> if it's current one possibility is that there is a bug with how action validity is cached 12:46:59 04Build failed for 08master @ 2d7b7a1a 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/1101984342 12:47:27 04Build failed for 08master @ 70931ec5 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/1102094258 12:47:30 <12ebering> yeah as in tournament games 12:48:20 <06advil> there's a somewhat involved caching mechanism so that the full spell targeting stuff doesn't have to be rechecked on every redraw (it's extremely heavy) 13:00:27 04Build failed for 08master @ 7c29f1f2 06https://github.com/crawl/crawl/actions/runs/1102131052 13:09:12 <12ebering> hmmm 13:15:18 Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.28-a0-83-g7c29f1f (34) 15:04:15 <09gammafunk> @advil I'm not going to do this now, but for CAO, do you think there would be any problem if I 1) added tutorial for trunk/stable, and I guess all new stables going forward and 2) adopted the fancy display lobby separator code on CKO to have the nice menu for old versions etc, provided that there was still a good space for you to add those announements? 15:04:44 <12ebering> @|amethyst s-z.org/crawl-dev log search seems to be broken 15:05:10 <09gammafunk> yeah, it and the git listing have been broken for a while now 15:05:12 adding a tutorial seems good 15:05:35 I like the way the cko lobby looks but the implementation is ... 15:05:40 <09gammafunk> heh, yeah 15:06:01 <09gammafunk> I guess the right way to do that would be to extend the lobby templating somehow 15:06:01 it would be nice to have something like that in regular webtiles with a cleaner implementation 15:06:03 yeah 15:06:05 "modern"? 15:06:16 (re implementation) 15:06:23 <09gammafunk> well, I guess "modern" is debatable..oh, yeah 15:06:39 there's no reason it *has* to be done that way unless you are trying to only use existing config.py variables with no other changes 15:08:32 <09gammafunk> I guess the tricky part about generalizing it is you have to introduce some notion of a logical group into the config 15:09:06 <09gammafunk> I'm not great with web front-end though and maybe it's relatively straightforward to make it work 15:11:07 I think it could be doable with a simple extension of the existing ordered dict approach 15:46:28 03ebering02 07* 0.28-a0-84-g312a84cf96: fix: keep the lighthouse keepers from the flame 10(69 minutes ago, 1 file, 3+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/312a84cf9655 15:46:28 03ebering02 07* 0.28-a0-85-g516ec72166: feat: treat *Rage as intentionally hasty 10(14 minutes ago, 2 files, 9+ 8-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/516ec72166cb 16:01:27 -!- allbery_b is now known as geekosaur 16:02:33 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-85-g516ec72166 (34) 17:04:41 03advil02 07* 0.28-a0-86-g9604337dc0: fix: render targeters after other overlays 10(4 minutes ago, 1 file, 26+ 10-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/9604337dc094 17:17:05 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-86-g9604337dc0 (34) 17:23:56 03ebering02 07* 0.28-a0-87-g9a7839dea9: fix: range and chance in dispersal targeter 10(2 minutes ago, 1 file, 18+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/9a7839dea97e 17:32:17 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-87-g9a7839dea9 (34) 17:45:45 <10PleasingFungus> @gammafunk wdyt about making only dex improve sh? 17:46:03 <10PleasingFungus> as opposed to dex/str weighted separately by shield type 17:55:31 <12ebering> I'm in favor 17:57:35 <10PleasingFungus> very well. the motion passes 17:58:30 <10PleasingFungus> ok, how about this one: instead of making summons halve xp, have them transmit damage back to you, spectral weapon style. not sure if monster summoners would do this too or not. 18:10:41 <09hellmonk> No idea how big the effect of stats on sh values is but i also support changing them to dex only 18:14:27 <09gammafunk> I think summons their transmitting damage, even if that could be done in a balanced way, would likely lead to player minigames to make inconvenient summons go away 18:15:41 <09gammafunk> I don't think you want to go down the route of more summon management at all actually, and that adds a new layer of that even if you can find a way to make it sane 18:15:54 <09gammafunk> you might consider some more aggressive summon capping 18:16:33 <09gammafunk> this is tricky to balance of course, since you have to allow summons playstyle to be strong enough while having the limitations be meaningful 18:16:50 <09gammafunk> per-spell caps are arguably part of the balance problem here 18:17:02 <09gammafunk> they're not effective for limiting summons as a whole, just for one spell 18:24:17 <09gammafunk> @PleasingFungus your suggestion made me think about a what-if where you just got a new-invis-evocation style drain cost with each cast of a summon spell. It would probably have to be fairly minor per cast, but all-out summons are pretty fun as a playstyle when you're pretty frail and there's an incentive to keep your summons sufficiently manage to protect yourself (because e.g. low mhp). A direct 18:24:17 version of this might just not work since heavy use could trap you an a "spiral" situation too easilly where you didn't enough mhp to safely survive anything. That might not really happen with reasonable play if you balanced this system well, but your proposal does avoid that particular problem. It's just that your proposal has you try to manage your summons to avoid damage, which is not so much fun. 18:24:35 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.28-a0-87-g9a7839dea9 (34) 18:25:46 <09gammafunk> But I do wonder if a per-cast or per-summon-created penalty that just directly reduced your player defenses might work 18:26:16 <09gammafunk> alternative to all this we finally merge 1kb's unsummon branch 18:27:31 <10PleasingFungus> reasonable 18:28:18 <10PleasingFungus> maybe? it might be nice to keep "hybrid summoner" as more of a viable style, but i think getting rid of the summon xp penalty is a higher priority 18:28:25 <10PleasingFungus> since it just is not at all fun 18:28:45 <09gammafunk> well, that's why I thought of adjusting capping 18:29:12 <09gammafunk> remove xp penalty because it's a bit harder to just create a swarm with e.g. two summon spells 18:29:27 <09gammafunk> maybe you could still do that but it would require more spells? depends on how you play with the cap system 18:30:08 <10PleasingFungus> would be a bit weird 18:30:23 <10PleasingFungus> would have to really rethink how summons work in general 18:31:07 <10PleasingFungus> would we have limits on stuff like haunt, xxx, dcall? 18:32:54 <09gammafunk> could you sort of have a "soft" global cap in addition to the per-spell ones that lowered your chance to successfully create a summon? it could be influenced by the spell's spellpower, so high power dragon's call, for example might not have much trouble overcoming it 18:33:18 <09gammafunk> agree it requires some careful thinking 18:33:45 <09gammafunk> I'm not sure there's a very simple adjust one could use to justify removing xp penalty 18:34:09 <09gammafunk> you could basically remove said penalty and do some kind of pretty small adjustment that's not meant to be an equal nerf 18:34:34 <09gammafunk> summons are just summons, in the end, bags of meat.... 18:35:17 <10PleasingFungus> i was thinking about a joking suggestion hellmonk made to just drop summon apts by 4 across the board, but unfortunately that doesn't work, for several reasons 18:36:16 <09gammafunk> yeah I could see that not working so great 18:36:31 <10PleasingFungus> (one obvious problem: multi-school summons) 18:39:52 <09gammafunk> so, the xp penalty from a balance perspective is not really about people using those spells with high non-summoning skill. It's at its "most effective" balance wise for the pure summoner playstyle, and presumably if you're making adjustments to compensate for xp penalty removal, you're doing so because of that playstyle in particular (it becomes too often the correct way to play when multiple summon 18:39:52 spells become available) 18:41:01 <09gammafunk> for characters who are mixing in some summons, the xp penalty isn't this major balance concern because they're getting back a lot of their xp. Maybe it's still somewhat of a concern because the xp lost is enough for a level or most of a level, but you don't really see a huge effect until you start killing closer to 100% using summons 18:41:36 <09gammafunk> For those characters I don't think multi-school would be an issue for the apt change; they need the summoning school to cast their repertoire of spells 18:41:45 <10PleasingFungus> mm 18:54:35 <09gammafunk> we removed staff of summoning, didn't we 18:54:38 <09gammafunk> ??staff of summoning 18:54:38 <04Cerebot> staff of summoning[1/1]: Enhances Summoning spells. Removed in 0.26. Prior to 0.18, also provided one level of {warding}. 18:54:42 <09gammafunk> rip 19:17:31 <05kate> aggressively increasing summon caps seems like it could be a good and simple change on its own, capping most summons at 1 unless there's an especially good reason for it to be higher than that or it's a very high level spell 19:20:31 <05kate> eg dcall/haunt/SHT could be mostly unchanged or capped at like 6 or something, and pretty much everything else capped at 1 (with maybe some rare exceptions capped at 2 like small mammal if needed) 19:22:21 <09gammafunk> spammal is 3 now? 19:22:24 <05kate> 4 19:23:12 <09gammafunk> 1 is probably just too low, but 2 might work, since imp is a big power boost (and if it's somehow not enough, there are crimson imps to remove!) 19:23:29 <10PleasingFungus> summon small mammal just sounds sad 19:23:42 <09gammafunk> the name of the spell, you mean? 19:23:47 <10PleasingFungus> yes, if we capped at 1 19:23:50 <10PleasingFungus> it was a joke 19:24:00 <10PleasingFungus> you can tell because you laughed, we had a good time, etc 19:24:20 <09gammafunk> I've allow it in this one instance, since in this channel the topic is not "immune to jokes" 19:24:24 <10PleasingFungus> anyway, tightening summon caps has the big advantage of being simple 19:24:32 <10PleasingFungus> i'm tentatively in favor 19:25:07 <09gammafunk> I wonder if summon ice beast (as it would become) might need to be level 3 19:25:32 <09gammafunk> canine puppers would outscale it I think 19:25:47 <09gammafunk> mana viper seems ok with one summon 19:26:08 <05kate> shadow creatures is the main one that stands out to me as especially awkward 19:26:17 <09gammafunk> I see people regularly say that spell is "the most broken" with 2 summons etc, which is nonsense but it shows people would be ok with it 19:26:24 <09gammafunk> right 19:26:44 <09gammafunk> yeah you can't do something simple like make the spell "always make a single band" for example 19:26:51 <09gammafunk> although I guess you could change the way it draws summons 19:27:00 <09gammafunk> like the old reworked shadow rod? 19:27:00 <05kate> could argue for removing it since it's also a scroll anyway, i guess 19:27:10 <09gammafunk> only use main dungeon/depths for the pool of summons 19:27:20 <09gammafunk> that way it could only make a band of monsters 19:27:26 <09gammafunk> maybe it would be imba though 19:27:28 <09gammafunk> bands are weird 19:27:48 <05kate> yeah, it's already in a pretty weird place as-is 19:27:49 <09gammafunk> I would be sort of sad to see it go as it's one of the more fun summons 19:28:25 <09gammafunk> variety is sort of key to what makes summons enjoyable ime, but yeah it's a bit shaky balance wise since every level has a different monster set 19:29:09 <09gammafunk> but I kind of think you might be able to do something with that old reworked rod of shadows technique: choose a main branch (D+Depths) level from which to draw the summon based on spellpower, more spellpower = greater depth 19:29:20 <09gammafunk> and always draw a band monster? 19:29:41 <05kate> possibly yeah, although that does lose out on the main exciting thing about it imo 19:29:51 <09gammafunk> which is? 19:30:22 <05kate> of getting to summon like, especially unique things like orbs of fire in zot 19:30:36 <09gammafunk> yeah 19:31:14 <09gammafunk> I guess we'd still have the scroll, but then we'd also have multiple schemes for this spell effect 19:31:59 <09gammafunk> I guess I support the general idea of adjusting caps and removing xp penalty, not sure how sad spammals with a cap of 2 for Su start will feel, but probably sort of ok 19:32:45 <09gammafunk> many Su combos start with 3mmp anyhow, so 2 cap and just recast when the first dies is your 3 mp spent 19:33:18 <05kate> yeah, i feel like it'd probably be pretty fine still, wouldn't expect it to have much trouble early 19:35:15 <10PleasingFungus> could make shadow creatures draw from the current branch and scale depth on power, but that only matters for some branches 19:35:44 <10PleasingFungus> not worth holding up a school wide change for one spell, though 19:36:07 <09gammafunk> maybe I can make Shadow Creatures -> Band of Shadows using my proposed spell idea 19:36:49 <09gammafunk> it is fun to get that feel of summoning of band of friends and less fun to summon a single partially eaten vault guard corpse zombie mimic 19:37:46 <09gammafunk> or we could come up with some completely new spell ideas, of course, but that is more work 19:40:50 <05kate> bands are definitely the other main fun part of the spell outside of silly things like orbs of fire yeah, could scale from like, orc band -> yaktaur band -> drac band with power or something (and would probably still want to cap the band sizes smaller than they are currently) 19:42:45 <05kate> but yeah that ends up probably being a whole different new spell design anyway 19:42:52 <10PleasingFungus> could work 19:43:46 <09gammafunk> maybe, yeah; there are some other good bands to potentially mix in, like ogre mage + ogres, deep troll shaman, in theory with max power you could consider ds bands 19:43:51 <09gammafunk> because we all love ds monsters 19:44:15 <05kate> grumble grumble 19:44:27 <09gammafunk> think of all the facets you might get 19:45:05 <09gammafunk> are there any other spells that are a big problem with an agressive cap? 19:45:32 <09gammafunk> there was talk of removing/reworking menag but I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly. Is it high level enough to justify its cap? 19:47:14 <05kate> menagerie is capped at 3 currently it looks like, i haven't used it since it lost harpy bands though so i'm not too sure how it plays currently. but that could probably still justify a cap of 2 or 3 since it's high level, i guess? 19:47:53 <05kate> hydra could also consider keeping at 2/3 instead of 1 because they're so short duration, that works pretty well 19:49:46 <05kate> also wow, when you go over the summon cap, different spells time out their excess summons at different rates 19:50:36 <10PleasingFungus> ! 19:50:46 <10PleasingFungus> i would not expect that 19:51:50 <05kate> as far as i can tell this is basically completely unnoticeable? almost all player summons time out after 10 aut, except ice beasts and imps time out after 15 aut, and Xs from SHT after 40 aut 19:52:53 <05kate> which come to think of it i maybe have noticed for SHT, you do occasionally actually see the "expiring" tag on those when you xv them 19:53:25 <09hellmonk> does sht need to randomly int drain you btw 19:54:01 <05kate> but outside of SHT and monster summon dragon (presumably carried over from player summon dragon), every single timeout is 5, 10 or 15 aut. extremely meaningful distinctions 19:56:38 <10PleasingFungus> it’s thematic! 19:56:50 <05kate> probably not but it would be very sad to lose the completely absurd list of messages that show up when that happens (also it's a bit of a shame to lose the flavour of various high level spells having that kind of downside with SGD gone too) 19:57:03 <09hellmonk> feels like int drain makes more sense on some emergency spell instead of something you want to cast a lot 19:57:09 <09hellmonk> but like a large amount of it 19:57:28 <09hellmonk> don't feel super strongly abt it though 19:57:56 <09gammafunk> remember haunt sickness? 19:58:06 <10PleasingFungus> kiku protected you! 19:58:10 <09hellmonk> no, I only used haunt to win musu of sif 19:58:40 <09gammafunk> !hs * musu 19:58:41 <04Cerebot> 31956. elliptic the Demonologist (L23 MuSu of Sif Muna), escaped with the Orb and 15 runes on 2012-09-13 19:39:50, with 52436210 points after 27371 turns and 8:00:10. 19:58:46 <09gammafunk> still tha champ 19:59:07 <05kate> poor kiku losing all those powerful bonuses like no haunt sickness and 13 extra ddoor health... 19:59:10 <09gammafunk> (this was a WR crawl high score for a little while) 19:59:22 <09hellmonk> oh, was the extra ddoor health removed? 19:59:30 <09hellmonk> that's kind of sad 20:00:07 <05kate> yeah, i think i ruined that one sadly 20:00:25 <09gammafunk> what's next, allistair's losing vertigo?! 20:00:49 <09hellmonk> alistair's should do the int drain 20:01:14 <09gammafunk> I think lasty wanted something universal to all types of chars 20:01:41 <05kate> it used to! 20:01:47 <10PleasingFungus> oh lol 20:01:49 <09hellmonk> think that most characters casting a level 5 dual school spell want int 20:01:58 <10PleasingFungus> do you remember the previous high score? 20:02:07 <09gammafunk> to MuSu? 20:02:09 <09gammafunk> hrmm 20:02:17 <09gammafunk> might have been a DESu? 20:02:20 <09gammafunk> I forget 20:02:27 <10PleasingFungus> !hs * end<2012-09-13 20:02:28 <04Cerebot> 1797388. Sapher the Demonologist (L27 MuSu of Sif Muna), escaped with the Orb and 15 runes on 2012-09-06 18:50:25, with 41872669 points after 34583 turns and 17:03:14. 20:02:34 <09gammafunk> yeah 20:02:41 <09gammafunk> elliptic and him had sort of a race for a while 20:02:42 <09hellmonk> make alistairs 100% success rate against applicable targets but it potion of degens you every cast and the degen gets worse the less power you have 20:02:45 <10PleasingFungus> the glory days 20:02:58 <09gammafunk> they won more after that too, like a DESu (maybe that was before) 20:03:08 <09gammafunk> then sapher's NaWz was the WR for quite a long time 20:03:19 <09gammafunk> then chei strats... 20:03:20 <10PleasingFungus> the one before that was elliptic again, but a ddee 20:03:25 <09gammafunk> nice 20:03:29 <09gammafunk> that one must be really old school 20:03:37 <09gammafunk> !hs * ddee 20:03:38 <04Cerebot> 16451. Irenicus the Petrodigitator (L27 DDEE of Makhleb), escaped with the Orb and 15 runes on 2020-10-27 20:26:48, with 57481572 points after 25198 turns and 6:57:09. 20:03:43 <09gammafunk> rip 20:03:50 <10PleasingFungus> then uh 20:03:54 <10PleasingFungus> this one 20:03:56 <09gammafunk> !hs * ddee cv<0.11-a 20:03:57 <04Cerebot> 3262. hyperbolic the Petrodigitator (L20 DDEE of Makhleb), escaped with the Orb and 15 runes on 2011-03-02 21:43:09, with 40764447 points after 35317 turns and 7:29:40. 20:04:07 <10PleasingFungus> !hs * end<2011-03-02 20:04:08 <04Cerebot> 938829. hyperbolic the Executioner (L27 DDCK of The Shining One), escaped with the Orb and 15 runes on 2009-11-21 22:58:46, with 36620901 points after 39740 turns and 7:53:59. 20:04:14 <09gammafunk> good 20:04:17 <10PleasingFungus> classic ddck wr 20:04:24 <09gammafunk> I guess elliptic was a turncount main back in those days 20:04:51 <10PleasingFungus> oh gosh 20:04:54 <10PleasingFungus> before that was 20:04:57 <10PleasingFungus> mdfi 20:04:58 <10PleasingFungus> !! 20:05:01 <09gammafunk> rob? 20:05:03 <10PleasingFungus> ya 20:05:05 <09gammafunk> nice 20:05:08 <09gammafunk> devs ftw 20:05:29 <10PleasingFungus> i like devs 20:06:29 <10PleasingFungus> think i’ll stop with this one: 20:06:32 <10PleasingFungus> !hs * end<2008-11-08 20:06:33 <04Cerebot> 200605. Grimm the Swordmaster (L27 MDPa of The Shining One), escaped with the Orb and 17 runes on 2008-08-04 06:09:59, with 12813270 points after 117781 turns and 7:49:17. 20:08:56 <09gammafunk> it's all good to end on a note that considers where these high scores were turncount wise back in the day, high 20k to mid 30k (unless going all the way back to that ancient Grimm one) 20:09:00 <09gammafunk> and where it is now 20:09:01 <09gammafunk> !hs * 20:09:03 <04Cerebot> 13420646. Sapher the Sensei (L27 GnNe of Cheibriados), escaped with the Orb and 15 runes on 2020-08-18 10:25:36, with 109233703 points after 13041 turns and 14:00:40. 20:09:12 <09gammafunk> 13k turns is not a lot of turns 20:10:13 <09gammafunk> that's in 0.21 tbf, a pretty old version by now 20:51:10 howdy everyone. my friend is playing a formicid and is, as far as I can tell, permanently stuck. he went through a pan portal and got dropped in an area surrounded by undiggable walls, cut off from the rest of the level. character dump: http://crawl.akrasiac.org/rawdata/pwrfulfish/pwrfulfish.txt 20:51:15 is there any hope for him? 20:51:23 (I asked in #crawl first and was pointed here) 20:51:49 I don't know if editing save files is a thing that happens. I think we've tried everything else by now 21:02:00 or like, temporary wizmode or something 21:06:59 <10PleasingFungus> oh boy, formicid stuck in an undiggable pan vault 21:07:08 <10PleasingFungus> been a few years since one of those 21:07:17 <10PleasingFungus> very unfortunate 21:08:19 a few years! wow. 21:08:23 what happened to the last one? 21:08:31 <10PleasingFungus> i believe that we have no way to help, but i could be wrong. @advil as cao admin is probably the right person to contact 21:09:24 <10PleasingFungus> we can try to fix the vault that caused this after the game, to prevent players being able to land in there 21:09:56 <09gammafunk> oh weird 21:10:05 <09gammafunk> I'm pretty sure that vault has been correctly tagged to disallow this 21:10:19 <09gammafunk> as in it's trapped people in the past and we fixed it 21:10:46 <10PleasingFungus> ah, i don't know the vault 21:12:58 should I get my friend to PM advil? or did we perhaps already summon them by @ing them. (relative IRC newb here) 21:13:43 <09gammafunk> fourba: I also have admin rights on CAO and can fix your friend's save, but it will take me a bit to do this, light maybe up to 8 hours 21:14:01 that would be amazing!! 21:14:04 <09gammafunk> you they don't mind waiting that long, I can ping you when it's fixed 21:14:11 <09gammafunk> not sure how you'd like to be contacted though 21:14:33 <09gammafunk> friend's email address? 21:14:41 <09gammafunk> the one on file for their CAO account 21:14:44 <09gammafunk> I can email there when fixed 21:14:49 yeah! let me ask him 21:15:30 his cao email is pwrfulfish@gmail.com 21:15:33 thank you so much! 21:15:41 <09gammafunk> sounds good, will send a quick message when fixed 21:16:17 I really, really appreciate it. I'm gonna go to dinner. thank you again! 21:16:22 no prob 21:16:30 !vault nicolae_pan_performance_anxiety 21:16:30 1/1. https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/dat/des/branches/pan.des#L2375 21:16:36 this is the vault, judging from screenshot 21:17:05 <08nicolae> awww come on, why's it gotta be my vaults 😔 21:17:23 well, does appear it's KPROPed correctly! 21:17:38 although I strongly disapprove of your use of glyphs 21:17:51 <08nicolae> that vault is like five years old at least 21:18:16 sins of the past...influence the present... 21:18:43 not to be a pest, but one last thing: if it's easy to do, do you think you could grant him full TSO piety while you're at it? we just abandoned him as part of a crazy scroll of summoning based plan to get out 21:18:45 <08nicolae> are you suggesting that my use of ABC glyphs is what led to that poor bastard getting stuck in the stands 21:19:05 fourba: Yeah I guess I can do that 21:19:36 thank you! I'll tell him all about the good news 21:19:51 @nicolae As much as I would like to actually blame you, I think this must be some kind of bug with our player placement code, maybe specific to Pan 21:20:00 <08nicolae> probably 21:20:42 <10PleasingFungus> can we blame nicolae anyway 21:21:00 <08nicolae> as penance i will make more shop vaults 😔 21:25:40 <10PleasingFungus> acceptable 21:26:02 <08nicolae> cool. how many quad damages is it okay to sell in a single shop 21:29:55 <10PleasingFungus> lol 21:30:12 <10PleasingFungus> if you buy a quad damage, does it instantly turn on? 21:31:49 <08nicolae> should it? don't you have to activate them 21:32:36 <10PleasingFungus> beats me 21:33:17 <08nicolae> yeah you gotta evoke em 21:37:46 <10PleasingFungus> huh 21:37:51 <10PleasingFungus> i had no idea 21:42:14 Do you risk damaging your quads if you use one? 21:42:36 <08nicolae> they might rip and/or tear 😔 21:44:15 That would make running away from danger tricky. 21:45:31 <08nicolae> don't run away from the danger, that just makes it harder to hit 21:49:47 You're not the one trying to cast Hailstorm at everything, though. 21:51:54 <10PleasingFungus> that plan seems doomed, makes me quake with disgust, etc 21:54:23 On another subject, is there a way to annoy Elyvilon with the ratskin cloak now? There's a strange message if you wear it in Trunk, but I've tried summoning hell rats, having them kill things, and having other things kill them, all without response. 21:55:10 <10PleasingFungus> huh 21:55:14 <10PleasingFungus> seems buggy 21:55:32 <10PleasingFungus> hell rats appearing should anger ely, i think 21:57:56 <08nicolae> id ask you to reconsider 21:59:06 I know there was a bug report saying that something annoyed it, but I haven't tried the specific version that was reported against to see what was happening.