The Tavern

General thread for comments about the current trunk and new features and feedback.

Let the devs know here what you're noticing in Trunk and how awesome (or terrible it is).

Post the explicit version you're playing.

Explain what you're seeing that you like or don't like!

If you're not sure if you want to make a bug report, post here.

Created a new thread for the new version.

Renamed the old thread.

FEEDBACK - REGARDING THE APPEARANCES OF UNIQUES
I'm playing 0.11-a0-99-gf8391ba

I am not seeing a lot of uniques in my game. Either my game has a lot (read: all, usually on the same level) of uniques or very few.
In my current game, I have only encountered Josephine.
Other games I have seen everyone from Dowan to Sigmund and in-between (Edmund, Terence, Jessica, Ijyb, Gastronok, Pikel, Menkakure, Duvessa (dur), Grinder)

I am sure this is just something random, but is it possible, however unlikely, that a flag is getting flipped that says "activate all early game uniques" or "don't activate any early game uniques"?

I didn't want to make a bug report because I'm not sure it's a bug, but I've seen it enough times across my games to wonder.

FEEDBACK - REGARDING SKELETONS
I'm playing 0.11-a0-99-gf8391ba

Did something happen with commands? I feel like skeletons stop following me or disappear randomly now. When I tell them to attack someone and then they are finished, they do not seem to come back to following me after they are completed with their task. Other times they randomly walk away (probably to attack something) and never come back, but I find them later.

Not any bug or otherwise important fact but...

I'm currently able to download trunk for windows tiles (the .zip file) 0.10-b1-77 from my feed subscription.

Does this contain all of the 0.11...-... trunk changes that were made the past few weeks or not?

My question is, what is the newest version cause I want to play that.

TehDruid wrote:Not any bug or otherwise important fact but...

I'm currently able to download trunk for windows tiles (the .zip file) 0.10-b1-77 from my feed subscription.

Does this contain all of the 0.11...-... trunk changes that were made the past few weeks or not?

My question is, what is the newest version cause I want to play that.

I know the answer to this.

0.10 is the candidate for next release.
0.11 is considered trunk and has beta changes.

0.10 has some of the changes from 0.11, cherrypicked from those committed to ensure the stability of 0.10.

For example,
if in 0.11 they decided to deactivate Deep Elves, then 0.10 wouldn't have that change,
but
if in 0.11 they fix a bug that causes Beogh to give you 1000 gold whenever you pray at an altar, then that bug would be cherrypicked to apply to 0.10.

Yes, naturally I opened up the crawl_changelog.txt file to see what is going on. Noticed all these "cherrypicked" commits.
So I'm guessing I should still play the latest 0.11 if I want to be up to date, right?

0.11 isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) available to download from the trunk build pages, so that 0.10 can get as much testing and attention as possible before release. Plus there's practically no difference between trunk and the 0.10 branch at this point.

MarvinPA wrote:0.11 isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) available to download from the trunk build pages, so that 0.10 can get as much testing and attention as possible before release. Plus there's practically no difference between trunk and the 0.10 branch at this point.

Well, apparently I'm not the only one seeing it in the RSS feed.

Well, the most recent version of 0.11 on my feed is a0-122 blah blah blah. Then (I noticed it today) came this 0.10-b1-77 blah blah blah.

TehDruid wrote:Well, the most recent version of 0.11 on my feed is a0-122 blah blah blah. Then (I noticed it today) came this 0.10-b1-77 blah blah blah.

This.

The feed seems to just list builds as they are built. I remember a patched version of 0.9 come down the pike a while back and only because it appeared in the feed.

I'll probably still be on 0.10-b1 until trunk page updates.

I know that some developers went through and made some ossuarys idiot-proof for secret doors, but there has to be a limit on this.

I just entered the ossuary where you start off surrounded by zombies and the room turns out to be a big rectangle, with each corner containing some treasures behind glass walls surrounded by a trap on each square.

It's obvious if you've played the tutorial that one of those glass walls is a secret door, so you have to wait and search and possibly step on a trap to do so to find the right wall to search.

Someone has turned the secret doors in this ossuary into plain walls.

So now it's a bunch of glass walls with traps in front that you learn you will never step on because you go straight for the blank wall portion to search against.

So either that was a mistake (which means its a bug) or it is intentional which is really ridiculously lousy and unnecessary hand holding that ruins the traps and challenge.

In my opinion.

XuaXua wrote:unnecessary hand holding

The situation you mentioned sure looks like some semi automatic vault update oversight, but then again, isn't "unnecessary hand holding" where Crawl has been going to for the last few months anyway? I wouldn't be surprised at anything.

Guess what: the 0.10 commit on de-spoiler-ifying of ossuaries didn't touch ossuary_minmay_tomb_2a.

If anything, this particular piece of feedback highlights an idiosyncrasy in the vault settings of secret doors, that the specific feature they distguish themselves as attempts to be similar to their adjascent feature. If the secret door's nsubst work put one on the edge of the glass cage, there would be more stone adjascent to the door then glass, and in its the attempt to hide it's accidentally outed itself.

So! This is a piece of feedback based not on the source, commit history, or the mechanics of vault setting itself, and instead on a single anecdotal incident that doesn't even provide a screenshot or morgue. At best, this suggests implementing setting what a secret door tries to disguise itself as; at worst, this further cements the unreliability of the nature of this feedback.

(Whether the de-spoilering process itself is hand-holding, alongside general secret door use, are seperate issues I'll let others discuss.)

claws wrote:Guess what: the 0.10 commit on de-spoiler-ifying of ossuaries didn't touch ossuary_minmay_tomb_2a.

...

So! This is a piece of feedback based not on the source, commit history, or the mechanics of vault setting itself, and instead on a single anecdotal incident that doesn't even provide a screenshot or morgue. At best, this suggests implementing setting what a secret door tries to disguise itself as; at worst, this further cements the unreliability of the nature of this feedback.

My bad for kneejerk assuming it was involved in the de-spoiler-ifying.

Also my bad for not including a screenshot, but I wasn't in a place to do so. I can describe it though: every secret door was not transparent rock, but was a square (1) aligned adjacent to the outer wall and another transparent rock and (2) looked like the outer wall, not the transparent rock.

I would think that if this is a dynamic aspect of secret doors, then there should be a way to force the door to look like a specific type of wall rather than request it to adopt a nearby disguise.

So... what's the plan for .11 by way of major changes?

Here's the planning page on the wiki:
https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:planning:planning

Presumably things that didn't make .10 are in for consideration for .11

.10 official release and .11 trunk still have MD in the '%' aptitudes list. This could probly be removed.

Forgive any ignorance on my part, but are permabuffs considered for 0.11 or 0.12?

TehDruid wrote:Forgive any ignorance on my part, but are permabuffs considered for 0.11 or 0.12?

Seems to be desired by all, but I guess it depends on which development cycle it's built in.

TehDruid wrote:Forgive any ignorance on my part, but are permabuffs considered for 0.11 or 0.12?

I was the one who put it on the 0.10 agenda, but I took a break instead. Now, I'm having second thoughts about it, so maybe never (will explain in another thread).

I'm playing 0.11-a0-295-geb127b3 on a Windows 7 machine.

Every game since upgrading to this build has featured gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls. Gnolls on D:1, multiple gnoll packs guarding stairs on D:2, etc. all fully prepared to kick my ass. Is this just a quirk of the RNG or did someone tweak the gnoll spawn rate?

jtron wrote:I'm playing 0.11-a0-295-geb127b3 on a Windows 7 machine.

Every game since upgrading to this build has featured gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls, gnolls. Gnolls on D:1, multiple gnoll packs guarding stairs on D:2, etc. all fully prepared to kick my ass. Is this just a quirk of the RNG or did someone tweak the gnoll spawn rate?

I don't think that's new to .11. I've noticed it in .10 and it's been mentioned in this thread

I only noticed it on switching from 0.10 release to trunk. It's Xom's work, no doubt.

I am noticing random abandoned shops. In Elf and Orc. Is this normal?

MarvinPA wrote:Yes.

"A shop that starts empty."

"Start" is misused; the shop doesn't ever stop being empty.

Don't know how long this one has been in, but Beoghites and summoners will like this:

Attacking a monster in water with an electrocution weapon, while a non-hostile is within the potential blast radius of an electrical arc, requires confirmation.

Nice.

There are some really good-looking tiles in trunk. Almost too good-looking - some of them look like they could be fixedarts.

Whoever added the "Water" status for when you are standing in water is my favorite person today. That's really helpful.

jejorda2 wrote:Whoever added the "Water" status for when you are standing in water is my favorite person today. That's really helpful.

You're welcome

It was Eronarn's idea and I coded it.

Grimm wrote:There are some really good-looking tiles in trunk. Almost too good-looking - some of them look like they could be fixedarts.

Until I get used to them, the new "realistic" armour tiles look too similar.

Yeah, I'm of the same mind and I made them! I've had more practice since then, and I'm planning to re-do a few (ring mail, scale mail), but would you guys have any specific suggestions? Making them a tiny bit bigger and making their silhouettes a bit more distinct is my general plan.

roctavian wrote:Yeah, I'm of the same mind and I made them! I've had more practice since then, and I'm planning to re-do a few (ring mail, scale mail), but would you guys have any specific suggestions? Making them a tiny bit bigger and making their silhouettes a bit more distinct is my general plan.

Vary the colors and/or shades. Add more distinct "pieces". The hood on the chain mail is a good example of something that stands out and tells me "this is chain mail".

I've been playing Draconians a lot lately in Trunk and having not found means of levitation easily in several games, I feel the need to ask why the Levitation spell was removed.

Because it was pointless and flight does everything it did but better.

XuaXua wrote:I've been playing Draconians a lot lately in Trunk and having not found means of levitation easily in several games, I feel the need to ask why the Levitation spell was removed.

With swiftfly removed, the distinction between levitation and flight became too thin to justify 2 spells. And there are already a lot of sources of levitation (potions, ring, randart) and other means to cross hostile terrain (spider form clinging, ice form swimming).

Looks like the distowhiners got what they wanted, massive distortion/Lugonu buffs in trunk. I might even come back from my break to cash in a few cheap wins, AK should be pretty much an automatic victory now.

Really? A "massive" buff?

You get some XP and piety from banishing monsters. I don't think it's a "massive" buff.

That was my interpretation. Maybe ebarrett thought that the commit concerning blunt distort/vamp weapons did something else?

Totally massive. Getting those 3 XP back from that orc you banished instead of accidentally blinking or teleporting him away totally worth it.

You get a lot of exp for not having to kill anything. You can start poking your way to victory ridiculously early now, and the extra piety doesn't hurt either.

BlackSheep wrote:Maybe ebarrett thought that the commit concerning blunt distort/vamp weapons did something else?

I fail to see what kind of reasoning could lead you to think what I think you thought I thought, whatever it was.

I think it's the fact that a slight boost to the partial XP that you get when a monster is banished plus a bit of piety hardly seems to qualify as "autowin", so I started grasping at straws.

Did the inventory order on Tiles local change?

Not a fan of it if it did; if it didn't, what am I doing wrong in my configuration files?

Inventory on the 'i' screen or on the panel in the main view?

BlackSheep wrote:Inventory on the 'i' screen or on the panel in the main view?

Bottom right panel, it is in some sort of reverse order. Books then other crap. Finding potions in the middle is really throwing me off.

Indeed. The option which controls it is the first one in the tiles_options.txt file: tile_show_items. But it doesn't seem to do anything. I can't remember any recent change which might have caused it. Please, report it.

I also noticed this, so I reported it.

The Tavern

Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.11)