00:00:31 <elliptic> I thought they didn't count for that banner?
00:00:44 <elliptic> am I misremembering
00:02:31 <elliptic> yeah, I don't see any banners that bailey would mess with
00:04:03 <jfcaron> I'll see if I manage to win this game.
00:04:03 <elliptic> potentially spiteful 3 I guess but I'm pretty sure it doesn't, I can check the scripts I guess
00:05:37 <elliptic> yeah, it doesn't
00:05:50 <elliptic> jfcaron: Bailey should be fine for all the banners
00:06:02 <elliptic> (other portals are also fine)
00:07:14 <jfcaron> thanks for checking.
00:08:27 <elliptic> probably the spiteful 3 banner description should be edited to make this clear I guess (avarice 3 and lord of darkness 3 are already unambiguously stated)
00:10:16 <elliptic> (the list of forbidden branches for avarice 3 is orc, vaults, depths, and the 5 possible lair subbranches)
00:11:57 <elliptic> (hm, I guess hell is allowed if you get helllair if helllair is still a thing (I haven't seen it recently))
00:12:20 <jfcaron> I just got a hell entrance on Lair 6, lol
00:12:27 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (D:15)
00:13:09 <elliptic> oh, heh, you are technically allowed to go in there before abandoning Ru but I wouldn't advise it :P
00:13:56 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (D:14)
00:15:02 <jfcaron> "Heretic" should also mention that Ru doesn't count?  Cuz there is no mollification to do?
00:16:09 <jfcaron> I gtg to bed, thx elliptic and ebering.
00:16:53 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (D:15)
00:17:57 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (D:15)
00:18:16 <elliptic> (it does mention Ru I think?)
00:19:10 <elliptic> also huh, I didn't know that heretic was changed to require the mollifications be in different games
00:19:26 <elliptic> I wonder if people actually do the banner now
00:21:11 <elliptic> I guess it's not actually a problem for the champion category points aside from gozag and xom, but it still feels a bit tedious
00:22:40 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (D:15)
00:24:01 <elliptic> I didn't scroll through everyone (I think we don't currently have an easy way to list all the players with a given banner?) but it looks like DevastatorOne might be the only person with Beogh 3 currently
00:41:33 <ebering> elliptic: yeah, heretic was changed based on player feedback
00:41:49 <ebering> several people from last t who earned it did so with a megadiesl char and abyss scumming
00:41:49 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Orc:2)
00:41:54 <ebering> said it was tedious aand unfun
00:41:56 <ebering> hm
00:43:37 <elliptic> really these "abandon/mollify X gods" banners have been tedious/unfun for over a decade :P
00:43:57 <elliptic> I don't have anything against the change, but I doubt it makes the banner not be tedious/unfun
00:44:10 <ebering> well, it makes it less scummable
00:47:12 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Orc:2)
00:50:19 <elliptic> one could argue that having to play 9 distinct games is a form of scumming too :P
00:51:53 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Abyss:1)
00:52:37 <elliptic> again, I'm not saying it's a bad change, just that I'm not sure that having a mollification banner at all is a good idea
00:53:30 <elliptic> I also just realized that the banner probably became more annoying when god wrath changed
00:55:09 <elliptic> actually, wait, that change was longer ago than I thought
00:59:21 <elliptic> yeah, so I looked it up and the heretic banner was added the same version that wrath became xp-based
01:00:36 <elliptic> and it definitely didn't have to be particularly tedious then, e.g. I did all the mollifications in XLs 13-15 the one time I got the banner
01:01:16 <Kelbell> Zein (L16 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Abyss:2)
01:02:47 <elliptic> potentially wrath got harder and that became unsafe, but certainly people weren't forced to spend a long time scumming abyss at one point
01:04:29 <elliptic> could consider adding a requirement that the mollifications all be done before some XL if you want to rule out scummy postgame behavior
01:04:39 <elliptic> (again, though, I'm not a fan of this sort of banner in general)
01:04:55 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Abyss:2)
01:05:06 <gammafunk> yeah, that was one of those banners we came up with just to have more banners
01:05:16 <gammafunk> add a new god, have to make more banners!
01:05:22 <elliptic> (I was just surprised that the banner requires doing special stuff for it in 9 different games - that's a lot of games!)
01:06:26 <elliptic> yeah, coming up with banners is hard
01:07:44 <elliptic> this one was added at the time (really brought back, there were older abandon/mollify-style banners) because xp-based mollification was new and exciting, and then banners tend to stick around...
01:08:37 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Abyss:2)
01:08:52 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Abyss:2)
01:10:00 <Kelbell> Zein (L15 GnMo) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Abyss:2)
01:10:52 <PleasingFungus> ah, someone's scumming
01:40:11 <Yermak> I agree, Heretic banner is stupid. I'm not doing it.
01:49:14 <gammafunk> Yermak: aside from that, how are you liking the new format in general?
02:02:58 <Yermak> gammafunk, I like that there is no more frantic chase for high-point species at start, tourney feels more relaxed. I also like that it's not all about streaking.
02:03:34 <gammafunk> cool, thanks
02:08:50 <Yermak> On the other hand, I don't know how to feel about the fact that your score isn't at your full control.
03:31:03 <Kelbell> Fork (bcrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.23-a0-3284-g36d58b93d9
03:31:56 <Kelbell> Fork (bcadrencrawl) on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.22.1-2817-gf99b734be9
04:23:33 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_
07:54:29 <gammafunk> advil: I went ahead and made the stat generation you implemented exclude boring games, so that it agrees with tstats
07:54:37 <gammafunk> there's still the bot issue, but that's not such a problem wthi t
07:54:45 <gammafunk> s/wthi/this/
07:56:31 <gammafunk> ebering: I also fixed loaddb.py to load the set of sql files you split from database.sql; if you split off more sql files, see my commit for calling it for db creation from loaddb
08:09:46 <alexjurk1> Yermak: by not full control, you mean the way other people doing better can cause your score to drop?
08:46:02 -!- randart_ is now known as randart
09:52:00 <ebering> ok
10:52:52 <PleasingFungus> I'm trying to write a new beam targeter (I know, I know) that shows a different color/effect on the very last tile it's targeting vs the rest of the beam. Do we have anything similar?
10:56:20 <gammafunk> PleasingFungus: not exactly; sounds logistically similar to shadow step targeter in that you may need a new AFF type
10:56:49 <gammafunk> otherwise it may be a challenge or just hacky to provide the necessary rendering
10:57:54 <PleasingFungus> ah well
10:57:54 <PleasingFungus> ty!
10:57:54 <advil> maybe the passwall/dig targeters are relevant, they have some code to only show on walls
10:57:54 <gammafunk> so you could return the usual AFF_YES for non-endpoint locations
10:58:05 <gammafunk> yeah that's a good lead as well; no idea how those differentiate things
10:58:48 <PleasingFungus> i can take a look
10:58:51 <gammafunk> I see it uses AFF_TRACER
10:59:11 <gammafunk> which might be sufficient as a means of differentiation, but what you're doing also isn't really a tracer
10:59:18 <gammafunk> well I assume it isn't, at least
10:59:58 <gammafunk> that's the general sort of idea for targeters though; different AFF type returned by your ::is_affected targeter method leads to different rendering
11:00:32 <gammafunk> and most only need AFF_YES and AFF_NO, with some using AFF_MAYBE for hypothetical affected squares
11:01:05 <gammafunk> dare we ask what this targeter will be for?
11:13:11 <PleasingFungus> i wonder if aff_maybe would be good enough
11:13:21 <PleasingFungus> the new targeter is for the new centaurs, of course
11:20:56 <gammafunk> aff_landing will render green, aff_maybe is a lighter yellow (in tiles, think it's the same color as aff_yes in console)
11:21:46 <gammafunk> ah, not it's not
11:22:01 <gammafunk> magenta for aff_maybe, lightmagenta for aff_yes
11:22:33 <gammafunk> so those all are already differentiated for you
11:23:15 <gammafunk> you could plug into the rendering to make them render differently for just your targeter if those colors don't work, but for console you sort of don't have many colors you can use in the first place
11:24:46 <PleasingFungus> aff_maybe sounds perfect i think
11:25:53 <gammafunk> one thing to keep in mind about that though: if there's a foreground actor, you don't get different background rendering in console between magenta and lightmagenta for those
11:26:21 <gammafunk> seems to just use magenta background for both
11:26:37 <gammafunk> this is relevant for a targeter that's a sigle ray, which I think yours will be
11:26:43 <gammafunk> s/sigle/single
11:27:20 <gammafunk> since it means you won't be able to tell the different between endpoint and non-endpoint solely by color in console if there's an actor at the endpoint
11:27:35 <gammafunk> but maybe the rendering is different for non-explosions in that regard
11:27:54 <gammafunk> for smite targeter explosions using aff_yes+aff_maybe, that's what happens
11:28:08 <PleasingFungus> i think that's ok - the important thing is to show a difference in color if there *isn't* an actor at the endpoint
11:28:14 <PleasingFungus> maybe i should actually explain what i'm doing...
11:29:50 <gammafunk> oh, well you're in luck then!
11:30:55 <gammafunk> I have to go, but I look forward to reading your proposal later and removing crawl from my hard drive in protest
11:33:04 <PleasingFungus> sounds good :)
11:41:50 <jfcaron> New centaurs?
11:46:14 <PleasingFungus> at low low prices!
11:49:53 <PleasingFungus> got the targeter working! ty gammafunk & advil
13:06:20 <Henzell> Unstable branch on crawl.akrasiac.org updated to: 0.26-a0-110-g95b6527 (34)
13:10:11 -!- Guest9235 is now known as bh
13:16:30 <ebering> gammafunk: or advil are you around for CAO admin
13:16:36 <advil> sure
13:17:02 <advil> what's up
13:17:25 <ebering> see pm
13:40:43 <Yermak> alexjurk1, or raise (in winrate category). Also in Combo HS category people can join efforts to drown someone - and this part is kinda fun.
13:42:40 <advil> gammafunk: how do you block a player name in the tourney scripts? I see an sql file that will delete them, but wouldn't any further games they played still show up?
13:45:22 <Yermak> Guys, I miss old tourney "Remaining Gods" note. I'd be great to have one for species and jobs.
13:45:35 <advil> yes, it's on the list
13:45:47 -!- amalloy_ is now known as amalloy
13:45:49 <advil> and remaining uniques
13:47:15 <Yermak> Speaking of uniques, what do you think of interaction between "Unique Harvesting" category and new ghost floors?
13:50:20 <ebering> not so happy with that
13:50:28 <ebering> advil: you need to add the names to player_blacklist.txt
13:50:41 <ebering> then run the shell script that uses the sql
13:51:54 <advil> oh, maybe I need to create that file
13:55:24 <advil> I locked that other account anyways
13:57:28 <advil> weirdly in that incident no one was using the mutelist
13:57:36 <advil> I wonder if it needs to be advertised better in the ui
13:59:09 <advil> I've also been wondering if servers should log 24hrs of chat or something, to better diagnose issues like this
14:01:48 <jfcaron> Should tremorstone tins be set to autopickup if I have } in my autopickup list?
14:07:17 <advil> sjw commit incoming (on dcss_tourney)
14:11:14 <jfcaron> Is there a way to make the game ask the user to confirm before starting a run with a preset seed?
14:11:37 <jfcaron> I once forgot to remove the setting from my rcfile after a GoTM and a couple of my wins ended up invalid.
14:11:50 <jfcaron> I didn't notice cuz I played different combos, so even with the same seed things where different.
14:12:08 <advil> I recently added a welcome message that highlights that you are in seeded mode, because of this
14:12:14 <jfcaron> Thank you!
14:12:28 <advil> it also might get a bit clearer as servers explicitly add seeded mode, it is turned on on cao already
14:12:33 <advil> so no need to use the rc method
14:12:47 <jfcaron> cool
14:13:53 <advil> what's slightly annoying still is that non-seeded and seeded mode share a save slot, but that's harder to fix for tech legacy reasons
14:14:57 <jfcaron> I don't mind the limitation to only one ongoing game.  In fact it helps because offline I had a bad habid of parking characters when things get hairy/difficult and never finishing those games.
14:15:55 <jfcaron> What's the maximum value of explore_wall_bias in my rcfile?
14:16:13 <advil> yeah, that's reasonable...it does mean you have to quit or change usernames if you accidentally start a game in the wrong mode though
14:16:28 <jfcaron> True, but I'm not good enough to worry about streaking yet. =p
14:17:41 <advil> looks like it should be MAXINT / 4 ;-)
14:18:03 <jfcaron> thx, I was diving into the code to check
14:18:07 <jfcaron> new IntGameOption(SIMPLE_NAME(explore_wall_bias), 0, 0, 1000),
14:18:21 <advil> ah, ok, so 1000 then
14:18:26 <advil> I was going by how it's used
14:19:05 <jfcaron> dist += Options.explore_wall_bias * 3; ?
14:19:27 <jfcaron> Looks like I can easily overflow dist..unless the IntGameOption limits it.
14:19:30 <advil> at one point it's multiplied by 4
14:19:59 <jfcaron> allow_undefined_behaviour = true
14:20:00 <advil> yes, that call sets 1000 as the max
14:21:08 <jfcaron> ok, that's what I needed.  Is it easy to add a note to the "options_guide.txt" saying the maximum for this (and for item_greed)?  Or can it be auto-generated from the code?
14:21:20 <advil> it's easy to add a note, though I'm not sure what the practical impact of setting it so high is
14:22:46 <jfcaron> I had it set to 2 and didn't notice any difference from 0.  I'll try a few values now that I know the overall scale, like 500.
14:27:22 <Kelbell> Itza (L22 GrFi) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Depths:1)
14:28:36 <Kelbell> Itza (L22 GrFi) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Depths:2)
14:29:17 <advil> !crashlog
14:29:18 <Sequell> 22234. Itza, XL22 GrFi, T:45931 (milestone): https://crawl.kelbi.org/crawl/morgue/Itza/crash-Itza-20200623-182716.txt
14:30:51 <Kelbell> Itza (L22 GrFi) ASSERT(deck_cards(deck) > 0) in 'decks.cc' at line 576 failed. (Depths:2)
14:45:00 <advil> still haven't figured out what's going on here but is it known that Storm seems to do damage out of los?
14:46:20 <advil> I have everything maxed for testing so maybe it doesn't do that in normal circumstances
14:55:25 <ebering> I think it is known that storm caauses damage outside of los
14:55:35 <ebering> well, I know it anyway
14:55:45 <ebering> it explodes like cbl or fireball
15:32:54 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 07* 0.26-a0-111-g8f6dc4e: Don't allow stacking from empty decks 10(3 minutes ago, 1 file, 15+ 6-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/8f6dc4e0a50b
15:34:50 <advil> sort of inclined to immediately backport that, does anyone have other opinions?
15:36:57 <ebering> yes I think so
15:37:03 <ebering> it's an exploitable crash
15:39:01 <Cheibriados> 03advil02 07[stone_soup-0.25] * 0.25.0-11-g1f837a7: Don't allow stacking from empty decks 10(10 minutes ago, 1 file, 15+ 6-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/1f837a76a117
15:46:36 <Pinkbeast> Oh, good, one we don't have to do
15:46:39 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.26-a0-111-g8f6dc4e0a5 (34)
16:16:15 <glaas> Hello! I am looking into adding to armour item descriptions a projection about what evasion will result should the player swap to that armour, like we have now for AC. I just wanted to make sure first that it would be an ok PR, and check if there's anything I should know going in.
16:22:01 <advil> that's probably good
16:25:17 <glaas> great
16:26:26 <jfcaron> Yeah I would love that feature.
16:26:29 <jfcaron> as a player.
17:59:00 <jfcaron> I didn't get Lorekeeper Tier 2 despite my GnWr not having any skills above 20 when I won.
18:09:45 -!- amalloy is now known as amalloy_
18:12:32 <Cheibriados> 03kate-02 07* 0.26-a0-112-g824cf5a: Don't allow Sif channeling to be dispelled 10(2 minutes ago, 1 file, 1+ 1-) 13https://github.com/crawl/crawl/commit/824cf5ae899b
18:16:29 <Kelbell> Unstable branch on crawl.kelbi.org updated to: 0.26-a0-112-g824cf5ae89 (34)
18:21:08 <advil> jfcaron: "Gnolls lack the necessary discipline to fully undertake this challenge, so Sif Muna has also banned Gnolls from receiving this banner. "
18:25:50 <Lantell> Unstable branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.26-a0-111-g8f6dc4e0a5 (34)
18:54:02 <jfcaron> advil: Oh I see, it's on the Rules page but not on the Banners page for the player.
19:13:22 -!- jfcaron_ is now known as jfcaron
20:22:56 <Lantell> Stable (0.25) branch on underhound.eu updated to: 0.25.0-11-g1f837a76a1
20:27:15 <gammafunk> advil: not sure if you found out that info, but the steps are outlined in the tournament guide doc
20:27:18 <gammafunk> in the repo
21:16:43 <jfcaron> scarf of invisibility is not marked as "useless" for people who sacrificed artifice to Ru.
22:09:18 -!- amalloy_ is now known as amalloy