00:00:19 <08n​icolae> i feel like corpseless and new yred could benefit from being worked on together, on account of yred's thing being "fun with corpses" 00:22:46 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-555-g4a18f0a723: Actually really remove +Rage 10(69 seconds ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/4a18f0a72348 00:22:46 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-556-gab23d0e057: Consider *Rage a bad prop 10(26 seconds ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/ab23d0e057b3 00:32:59 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-556-gab23d0e057 (34) 01:03:49 <12e​bering> @nicolae perhaps, except my plan is to make yred more about souls than corpses https://github.com/crawl/crawl/wiki/Rekindle-the-Black-Torch-%28a-new-Yredelemnul%29 01:12:15 <09h​ellmonk> Gotta pay the soul toll 01:12:56 <09h​ellmonk> anyway if new yred does not care abt corpses or only cares abt them in a superficial abstracted way, that solves the biggest impediment to corpseless 01:13:44 <12e​bering> gameplay wise 01:13:54 <12e​bering> all the corpsy-spells use the corpse item internally 01:13:58 <12e​bering> 😉 01:14:20 <09h​ellmonk> Yeah idk if i will have the strength to decouple that entirely, we shall see 01:14:25 <10P​leasingFungus> i can help 01:14:29 <10P​leasingFungus> i like rewriting code 01:14:32 <10P​leasingFungus> i should rewrite irradiate 01:14:55 <09h​ellmonk> also putting corpses into a sort of bloodspatter like thing for visual effect might be good even if corpse as item goes 01:25:23 <10P​leasingFungus> i like that 01:25:30 <10P​leasingFungus> i think kate disliked the visual clutter when we talked about it last 01:25:43 <10P​leasingFungus> but if it's tiles only then kate isn't allowed to complain 01:25:45 <10P​leasingFungus> that's the law 01:25:57 <10P​leasingFungus> (or could do an rcfile option or something) 02:53:46 Unstable branch on cbro.berotato.org updated to: 0.28-a0-556-gab23d0e057 (34) 03:34:52 Fork (bcrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.23-a0-4390-gf548871813 06:23:09 Experimental (bcrawl) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.23-a0-4390-gf548871813 08:49:47 can we rewrite dcss to be this: http://robotfindskitten.org/play/robotfindskitten/ 08:50:54 IIRC CAO offers, or offered, Robot Finds Kitten as another game to play 08:51:07 oh wow, lol 08:51:25 it's on a few servers, it's one of the classic dgamelaunch-supported games 08:51:57 TIL. I just found out about it eight minutes ago. 09:57:31 New branch created: pull/2162 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/2162 09:57:31 03Santiago Acosta02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/2162 * 0.28-a0-422-g485a8aac0b: Remove archer monsters hidden bonus damage 10(19 minutes ago, 1 file, 0+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/485a8aac0bfa 10:10:57 I'm more inclined towards that contributor's option b (show explicitly) rather than removal, though I'll admit the bonus damage formula is somewhat weird 10:12:02 possibly M_ARCHER and M_PREFER_RANGED should both be described more directly 10:13:55 <10P​leasingFungus> it’s good that ranged monsters are better at ranged 10:14:11 <10P​leasingFungus> it creates a fun dynamic where you want to close into melee with em 10:14:25 yes 10:15:03 tho I think the counterargument might be that M_ARCHER also contributes to to-hit already 10:16:02 but on the other hand, monsters don't have skills, so it seems only fair to give them some breaks from time to time 10:17:47 <10P​leasingFungus> heh 10:24:02 do you know if the archer to-hit bonus is hidden too? I suspect it's not (but that it's maybe not obvious that the number shown incorporates a bonus) 10:24:36 ("hidden" really meaning that it's left up to monster descriptions to imply, which they mostly do) 10:26:30 <10P​leasingFungus> i can check in a bit 10:26:39 <10P​leasingFungus> suspect it’s included 10:26:51 <10P​leasingFungus> actually it almost certainly is 10:27:15 <10P​leasingFungus> because the to hit desc code is very close to the attack code 10:42:48 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-557-gaa5fe0c46d: Make shard shrikes battify after shooting 10(10 hours ago, 1 file, 5+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/aa5fe0c46d64 10:42:48 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-558-g619f226d55: Describe archer bonus damage 10(40 seconds ago, 4 files, 15+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/619f226d5548 10:42:50 New branch created: pull/2163 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/2163 10:42:50 03Santiago Acosta02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/2163 * 0.28-a0-422-g3f050cadb1: Simplify mon_to_hit_base, remove pointless distinction 10(3 minutes ago, 5 files, 7+ 13-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/3f050cadb1b4 10:44:57 <10P​leasingFungus> with archery 10:44:57 <10P​leasingFungus> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/747522859361894521/892421629500620830/unknown.png 10:45:12 <10P​leasingFungus> without archery 10:45:13 <10P​leasingFungus> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/747522859361894521/892421694113861632/unknown.png 10:45:36 <10P​leasingFungus> the secondary to-hit is wrong in the ranged case, but that sort of doesn't matter, since it can't do the secondary attack and shoot at the same time anyway 10:55:42 <08n​icolae> > If players think they're too weak now, something can be arranged. i assume pf was making this face when writing this 😈 10:55:48 uh oh 10:56:00 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-558-g619f226d55 (34) 11:03:29 <08n​icolae> also, thanks to narguns, i have finally realized one of my stupidest vault ideas 11:12:40 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-559-gfb8421d2c4: Revert: "Revert "fix: Clarity once again blocks *Rage"" 10(8 minutes ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/fb8421d2c4d0 11:16:57 <10P​leasingFungus> oh boy 11:18:15 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-559-gfb8421d2c4 (34) 11:18:54 <05k​ate> i don't have strong opinions on the *rage clarity thing (i guess i'd tend towards it making more sense for clarity to block it), but i think if it's being treated as a bad property and blocked by clarity again, the description should probably be changed back too 11:19:19 <05k​ate> since it was reworded to be more positive (it "lets you berserk" instead of "causes you to go berserk" or similar) 11:20:33 *Salty *Toxic 11:28:19 <10P​leasingFungus> good catch, thanks! 11:30:21 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-560-g173413878b: Clarify *Rage desc (kate) 10(24 seconds ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/173413878b93 11:48:29 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-560-g173413878b (34) 12:32:48 Hey there! 12:33:13 hi Nasst 12:33:36 I have a proposed improvement for the archer damage description proposed here: https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/619f226d55481f441e0e2c927b9642aed8c3b37b 12:33:51 I mean, that's the description, not the improvement, lol 12:35:12 https://imgur.com/a/8GntWUg <- this is what it would look like 12:35:31 that looks reasonable to me 12:36:07 The idea is being able to tell how much the damage would drop if you get the monster to stop attacking you at ranged 12:37:01 Idk if "ranged weaponry" is explicit enough about including things like javelins 12:37:23 I think that's pretty clear 12:37:27 also, when discussing this earlier, we were thinking that it could be good to somehow make more explicit the M_PREFER_RANGED flag in that screen (which is relevant to your reasoning because you probably can't get those monsters to stop attacking with ranged these days) 12:38:34 True 12:38:52 Yeah, like a javelineer 12:39:11 TBH, even though I'm happy this is getting a description 12:39:26 I strongly feel this damage should just be removed. 12:39:37 I read the commit that introduced it, in 0.15 12:40:07 and there was literally no reasoning given, other than the fact that fighter tag gives a bonus to_hit 12:40:17 there was a brief discussion earlier about this here 12:40:44 What was the consensus? The end result is very unintuitive. 12:40:54 <12e​bering> player monster symmetry is a lie 12:41:04 well, this channel is logged so you can look (link in topic) 12:41:15 but the consensus (among like two people) was keep 12:41:18 I mean, it is, but its also a helpful tool 12:41:41 Like, if we have a death from affar spell on a monster 12:41:53 We wouldn't call it magic dart. 12:42:10 and have it deal 4d30 or something. 12:42:36 players have expectations based on what they, themselves are able to do with the same tools. 12:42:55 players have skill training and aptitudes, also 12:43:11 Yeah, of course, of course. 12:43:24 I mean, the first time you encounter a javelineer 12:43:48 You probably don't expect it to hit harder than an impaler with a +9 demon trident 12:43:59 so one way to think of this flag is that it's a way to designate a monster as "good at ranged" without full on giving monsters skills and setting those ones high 12:44:19 I do think the monster's description also needs to be (and for the most part is) consistent with that 12:44:30 Sure. I see the gameplay angle to that 12:44:53 the javelineer desc in particular is a bit elliptical, but e.g. the deep elf master archer desc is very clear 12:44:53 But then, when the buff was introduced, base damage should have been revised 12:45:24 <12e​bering> there is no effort among the dev (neither then nor now) to preserve a pristine balance state 12:45:30 <12e​bering> sometimes things get stronger or weaker, with no comp 12:45:30 which buff do you have in mind? 12:45:55 in 0.15 this damage was introduced, that's the buff I mean. 12:46:08 Sure, ebering, I can see that, and that's reasonable 12:46:10 The thing is 12:46:25 Whoever first designed, say, the impaler/javelineer pair 12:46:27 I think if there's a relevant buff here it's probably the infinite ammo one tbh 12:47:00 They clearly didn't mean for the javelineer to hit *harder* 12:47:34 advil: I can't think I've _often_ dealt with a javelineer by getting its finite supply of javs stuck in me 12:47:44 Think about it. Imagine you're designing those monsters today. 12:47:58 Would you give the monster that can attack from LOS higher damage? 12:48:23 Given the fact that both have similar XP values and are apparently about the same threat level? 12:49:16 pinkbeast I mean for M_ARCHER monsters in general, but I do think that applies to javelins as well 12:51:51 re the bonus damage, maybe? 12:52:18 I guess they were introduced as a pair so that's why you're comparing them, but the question is probably, are javelineers themselves too strong for their placement, hd, etc 12:53:34 While I feel javelineers in particular are a problem, my issue isn't exactly that 12:53:39 even if the answer to that is yes I'm not sure that weakening all archer monsters is the solution 12:54:00 as PF said earlier (see logs) "it’s good that ranged monsters are better at ranged" 12:54:01 It has to do more with player expectations over relative monster threats 12:54:04 Like 12:54:13 If monsters with the fighter tag 12:54:31 also had a bonus of hd * 4/3 theirs damage 12:54:46 it would be insane, imo, but it would solve the problem I'm speaking about 12:55:10 I'm not sure how that would solve any problem, because the fighter flag is not very directly exposed to the player 12:55:40 Sure, but it could be 12:55:52 I mean, not the flag itself, the bonus damage. 12:55:57 just as we did now 12:56:02 with the archer bonus damage 12:56:25 I don't feel the archer tag is very well conveyed btw. Like, Why aren't cyclops archers, or fauns 12:56:32 what is the problem with fighters? I'm missing something here 12:56:56 <12e​bering> for this conversation, it's going to be impossible unless you distingish and discuss separately: ui issues related to clearly communicating to the player what a monster does and whatever balance tweaks certain monsters might need 12:57:12 Agreed! 12:57:40 There are 2 issues, in my view: 12:58:05 1) javelineers, in particular, are too strong. 12:58:09 (fauns probably aren't archers because they're strong enough as is, and also satyrs are archers; cyclops probably aren't archers because large rocks are strong enough as is) 12:58:54 I think you're assuming waaay more thought went into it than it really did 12:58:56 let me find the commit 13:01:34 07DracoOmega02 * 0.13-a0-1830-gae4169705d: Faun and Satyr gear and spellset adjustments 10(8 years ago, 5 files, 19+ 65-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/ae4169705db3 13:01:34 %git ae4169705db3b736 13:01:45 fauns had archer and lost it in that commit, there's some discussion of why 13:01:52 though M_ARCHER meant something slightly different back then 13:02:50 https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/af65ebd5ff1d82a27b1e881ec2cd63875bbbeb47 13:03:16 "Sort of similar to how M_FIGHTER gets a melee accuracy bonus, I think 13:03:17 this has a place here." 13:03:29 you can use "%git commithash" here 13:03:32 There's no possible comparison 13:04:00 Like, this bonus damage is sometimes as large as the base damage! 13:06:00 I think that's a somewhat different argument, I do agree that the archer bonus damage is odd 13:06:56 I think they didn't realize the implications of that buff. 13:07:16 And now we've internalized monsters with ranged weaponry as moving death-cannons lmao 13:07:44 But I really think that design is very unfriendly. 13:09:48 unfriendly how? 13:10:29 (I should say that I'm not sure I agree that mf javelineers are too strong for their role, if they are I don't think it's by a huge margin) 13:11:18 weren't javelins themselves recently nerfed? 13:11:45 I think that was a player-oriented nerf 13:11:56 the recent change I'm thinking of at least was that dropped ammo quantities were reduced 13:13:36 <09h​ellmonk> Javelins in javelineer hands were most recently buffed, iirc (by silver and steel javelins being merged) 13:15:19 They also attack in 1.0 instead of 1.2 right? 13:15:31 Although that's admitedly a more general monster buff 13:16:12 I don't think javelineers have a throwing speed bonus if that's what you mean (but e.g. DE master archers do) 13:16:35 No, I mean, the recent change to monster attack speed. 13:16:52 before it, didn't they use the average of 1.0 and the weapon's base attack speed? 13:17:07 I don't think that change affects ranged? could be wrong 13:17:18 New branch created: pull/2164 (1 commit) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/2164 13:17:18 03Santiago Acosta02 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/2164 * 0.28-a0-561-g91b0eb6ec0: Improve archer description 10(6 minutes ago, 1 file, 6+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/91b0eb6ec001 13:17:20 at least not for thrown ammo 13:17:21 I mean, it has to affect at least launchers 13:17:35 but yeah, it might not affect thrown ammo 13:18:33 btw I think #2164 is also a good idea because it doesn't look to me like PF's change earlier would convey anything about thrown weapons 13:19:37 Ohhh, right 13:19:44 I didn't catch that 13:20:03 it calls is_range_weapon 13:20:06 btw 13:20:17 if any of my pull requests get accepted 13:20:31 it will be my first "real" code, like, ever, lol 13:20:42 i know its dumb, but I'm a little bit excited 13:20:52 :-) 13:21:23 I'm close-ish to getting my CS degree. 13:24:09 How do I run the checks locally btw? 13:24:59 you can run `make test` to get the code-oriented ones, util/checkwhite and util/unbrace for the linting 13:25:19 it should be possible to enable CI on your copy of crawl in github, I think 13:25:56 Thanks! 13:29:11 03Santiago Agustn Acosta02 {GitHub} 07* 0.28-a0-561-gc72452776e: feat: improve archer description (#2164) 10(6 seconds ago, 1 file, 6+ 5-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/c72452776ecf 13:30:03 for reference the biggest change in that commit message was limiting it to 72 characters 13:31:55 Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.28-a0-560-g1734138 (34) 13:32:12 Should I limit the title to 72? or every line? 13:32:39 every line 13:32:59 Alright! 13:34:25 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-561-gc72452776e (34) 13:42:53 <09h​ellmonk> Fairly certain that monster weapon speed didnt affect throwables, yeah 13:44:51 <09h​ellmonk> wrt to javelineer power level, they are the most dangerous shoals monster by quite a bit and probably close to the top sbranch threat overall. Idk if that makes them "too strong" or not but it isnt totally unreasonable to think that some of their recent buffs could be compensated 13:50:12 seems plausible, I wouldn't put too much weight on my parenthetical earlier 13:50:58 one idea might be simply to reduce the number that place in shoals a bit 13:52:40 it's really shoals:4 I guess, looking at objstat numbers 13:53:01 the averages don't look to crazy to me though 13:54:03 <12e​bering> Or scale their base dam a bit. But this is a matter of number tuning. I don’t think nasst is going to find strong agreement with the thesis “it’s unexpected for some monsters to be exceptionally good at ranged”—especially not those whose name suggests special training. 13:54:45 I mean, it's not exaclty that. 13:55:26 It's more "It's unexpected for monsters that are good at ranged to hit significantly harder than mosters that are good at melee" 13:55:35 But I don't think i'll find agreement there either 13:56:18 ebering: well, one of the weird things about them is that base dam doesn't interact with the archer bonus at all, it's just based on HD 13:57:10 Yeah, one way to fix the issue is to keep the archer bonus, and adjust the base damage accordingly. 13:58:01 There can be somthing tactically interesting in trying to get into melee with a monster to avoid the extra damage 13:58:03 I wouldn't put too much weight on the fighter vs archer flag comparison, they're used quite differently and those flags are an internal implementation thing anyways 13:58:12 there are certainly monsters around that hit extremely hard 13:58:22 Yeah, I don't really care about the flags themselves 13:58:40 I care more about the way information is presented to the player. 13:59:02 not the "fighter flag" fighters 13:59:36 but rather the monsters that are presented to the player as "this is a monster that's an expert at melee combat with weapons" 14:00:19 <10P​leasingFungus> i am somewhat worried about adding more clutter to the monster ui 14:00:27 <10P​leasingFungus> think it's already much too cluttered and badly needs a redesign 14:00:33 <10P​leasingFungus> multiple tabs, tables, that sort of organization 14:00:49 probably true 14:00:53 I mean, its only a handful of monsters right? 14:01:09 <10P​leasingFungus> sure, but it's always something 🙂 14:01:14 <10P​leasingFungus> very easy to keep adding more and more and more cruft 14:01:21 <10P​leasingFungus> (which i've certainly been guilty of myself!) 14:02:32 I can't think of another way of conveying this information clearly 14:03:01 in this case one idea might be to roll the info in to the "it is quivering" line 14:03:32 if I were to add M_PREFER_RANGED somehow that is probably where I would start 14:04:20 but I don't think that the specific monster displays I looked at are too cluttered with this extra line 14:05:13 Can't we just expect that players will discover M_PREFER_RANGED through interacting with the monsters? 14:05:34 Yeah, I think clutter-wise, any spellcaster is probably worse than 14:05:37 https://imgur.com/a/8GntWUg 14:05:39 say this 14:07:07 Most monsters with the Archer flag are relatively simple, and this is pretty much their "thing". 14:09:55 03Santiago Agustn Acosta02 {GitHub} 07https://github.com/crawl/crawl/pull/2163 * 0.28-a0-563-gbb8911129c: Merge branch 'crawl:master' into remove_pointless_melee_ranged_distinction 10(70 seconds ago, 0 files, 0+ 0-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/bb8911129c3e 14:10:45 <12e​bering> merge commits are generally not necessary for small patches like this 14:10:59 Yeah, that was unintended, sorry 14:11:02 Should I fix it? 14:11:42 Or rather...I don't know how I would fix it if I wanted to >_< 14:12:58 <12e​bering> if you want to fix it, git rebase --interactive master followed by force pushing, but it's not necessary 14:13:03 <12e​bering> whoever does the merge can rebase 14:13:15 Right. Thanks! 14:15:20 and learn about using rebase instead of merge, so you can avoid it next time 14:15:35 rebase is a little more work but the result is much cleaner 14:21:05 I will! 14:37:12 what's that term for code debt? where you implement something very complicated and it results in many further bugs over time when it interacts with other systems 14:38:54 technical debt? 14:40:40 sounds familiar, that's probly it, thanks 15:36:33 spicyCebolla: "normality" 16:29:39 Ugh why does all of C++'s new ranges/container stuff have to be so verbose to the point that the code they're replacing feels the exact same length, but less unreadable due to the extra boilerplate 16:39:05 Is there any reason why _to_hit_pct is only available to spl-cast.cc? 16:39:10 The code seems generic enough 16:40:07 I want to use it to calculate % of hitting of abilities 16:48:55 The normal practice would be to remove the leading _ and the static, and add it to a header. You'd need a different name, though, as there's already a to_hit_pct() in fight.cc. 16:50:33 I think the one in fight.cc takes different argument types 16:50:56 <10P​leasingFungus> nasst: it's only in spl-cast because it's only used there 16:51:21 It would be really confusing to have two completely different global functions with the same name, though. 16:51:21 <10P​leasingFungus> if you use it somewhere else, reasonable to extract it, as aliscans said. possibly move it into spl-util 16:51:51 Right, makes sense 16:52:03 it could be to_hit_pct_beam or something 17:08:12 I got a more serious question now—I feel like this was lightly touched on earlier regarding code formatting, but I'm curious on the other end of that: what would y'all think of including configuration for linting via clang-tidy? I would imagine this would be as utility for maintenance, not a required tool the way checkwhite is. 17:09:09 The reason I ask is I have noticed that there's a large degree of difference in "code written and untouched from twenty days ago" and "nice code written last month", and my editor—which warns for a lot of clang-tidy stuff—tends to find issue with the former quite often. 17:09:48 <12e​bering> twenty days ago is younger than last month? 17:10:26 Ack. I meant years, not days. 17:10:30 Minor difference. 17:26:24 * Pinkbeast assumes in context "clang" is not what the gong does 17:26:24 SHROANNG! 17:30:18 thanks Sequell 17:34:43 Since this probably makes it clearer what I'm proposing (and I probably should've led with this, but I got distracted), this is the sort of command line output clang-tidy usually gives. https://i.imghurr.com/e/qfuf4MCuyj.png 17:36:01 Because crawl is like... big, it'd be something based on enabling checks that are basically "always right" (e.g., using range based loops instead of c style loops, something that's really only in the old code areas) 17:37:23 Also if this seems like a positive thing—or something worth /trying/—I am obviously happy to be the one to do the tedious work. I just want to make sure this is something that makes sense and that could help from y'all's perspective—from my personal experience, I think it could. 17:38:57 (I'm probably overthinking this :P) 17:39:37 I love tools like that 17:40:53 <12e​bering> if it is finding bugs then bugfixes are good, but in the past conversations about code tidy tools have pointed out that they make git blaming harder to find out if somethign was intentional or a crawl quirk.. 17:41:30 git has a way to ignore commits for blame purposes nowadays 17:41:34 Yes, they absolutely can ruin git blame 17:41:36 wait really? 17:42:41 also, I tend to use git log -G/-S/-L instead of git blame, and those are a bit less affected by reformatting commits 17:43:13 I got it to display % to hit on naga's breath 17:43:24 @ebering: honestly, I would most likely support use in that sense where it's only focused on refactoring a specific portion of code (≈ a file)—there's just so many issues with mass-automated refactors. 18:06:33 temoid (L23 DjVM) ASSERT(!invalid_monster(&mons)) in 'mon-death.cc' at line 1468 failed. (Elf:3) 18:10:40 <05k​ate> !crashlog 18:10:42 <04C​erebot> 24075. temoid, XL23 DjVM, T:73886 (milestone): https://crawl.kelbi.org/crawl/morgue/temoid/crash-temoid-20210928-220618.txt 18:24:23 Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.28-a0-561-gc72452776e (34) 18:56:55 <10P​leasingFungus> lost souls… 19:00:20 How could I talk about my code? 19:00:34 I'm not sure it makes sense to keep going the wat I'm going 19:01:38 I'm pretty sure that I can add to hit displaays to, at least, many abilities. Like, all the dragons breaths 19:01:44 <12e​bering> Push it to a branch in your copy of the crawl repo and link it here 19:01:53 Awesome! 19:13:25 https://github.com/Nasst/crawl/tree/experimentation 19:13:27 Ok 19:14:27 So the idea is to inherit from targeting_behaviour 19:15:25 and override get_monster_desc, to be able to display the % to hit 23:01:40 <08n​icolae> is there a way to use set_feature_name on only a subset of that feature in a given vault 23:01:48 <08n​icolae> or some function with similar, er, functionality 23:03:36 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-562-g911e869b65: Update background creation guide 10(12 seconds ago, 1 file, 19+ 9-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/911e869b65dc 23:05:56 03PleasingFungus02 07* 0.28-a0-563-gf77a47075d: A few more minor doc fixes 10(6 seconds ago, 1 file, 2+ 2-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/f77a47075d75 23:18:02 Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.28-a0-563-gf77a47075d (34)