The Tavern

... apparently.

Here's some feedback: what, no fanfare?

Suggestion: rename Hellfire as Hellblast or Hellsmite or something, so people won't think that rF protects them from it.

eeviac wrote:Suggestion: rename Hellfire as Hellblast or Hellsmite or something, so people won't think that rF protects them from it.

Yeah, this is a good idea.

On I side note, is it just me, or is there no 0.12 :?:

.11 is considered feature complete and has been branched for debugging before official release. Trunk is now .12.

eeviac wrote:.11 is considered feature complete and has been branched for debugging before official release. Trunk is now .12.

Then why isn't it on the trunk page? I could compile it myself, but it would get tedious with the constant save-file shuffling. I run debian, so it would be nice if the package was on the repos....

How can I compile it? Is there a way to do so via git?

Deimos wrote:How can I compile it? Is there a way to do so via git?

http://gitorious.org/crawl/crawl/blobs/ ... NSTALL.txt

giygas wrote:Then why isn't it on the trunk page?

Nobody got around to putting it there. Also before a release usually the latest beta version was served on the trunk page instead of actual trunk, to get some more testing before the release (nobody seems to have gotten around to this either). The 0.12 builds are available from the RSS feeds. Only for Windows and Mac though, I don't know if you can find up to date debian packages somewhere. At least there are beta versions for debian instead of just the last alpha.

Okay so I posted feedback in the .11 thread because I'm stupid and didn't realize we moved to .12.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3744&start=250#p72712

Sorry.

Galefury wrote:
giygas wrote:Then why isn't it on the trunk page?

Nobody got around to putting it there. Also before a release usually the latest beta version was served on the trunk page instead of actual trunk, to get some more testing before the release (nobody seems to have gotten around to this either). The 0.12 builds are available from the RSS feeds. Only for Windows and Mac though, I don't know if you can find up to date debian packages somewhere. At least there are beta versions for debian instead of just the last alpha.

Aren't those pages updated automatically? Maybe something broke.

Galefury wrote:
giygas wrote:Then why isn't it on the trunk page?

Nobody got around to putting it there. Also before a release usually the latest beta version was served on the trunk page instead of actual trunk, to get some more testing before the release (nobody seems to have gotten around to this either). The 0.12 builds are available from the RSS feeds. Only for Windows and Mac though, I don't know if you can find up to date debian packages somewhere. At least there are beta versions for debian instead of just the last alpha.

Peh. I'll just run the windows build in wine.

Sprint VI is awesome. That is all.

BlackSheep wrote:Sprint VI is awesome. That is all.

Feels more like a modified Zot Defense than anything, just without the orb and runes. (On a side note, is there any kind of a win condition for Sprint VI?)

The orb spawns after round 27. You can continue until you have 10 runes for maximal score. If you carry the orb while doing "extended endgame", extra points.

I can see a small problem. Apparently I can no longer butcher chunks with "Shift+LMB". I get the "There isn't anything to butcher here" message. "c" still works perfectly. This bugs me cause i like to play mouse only and i have "shift" bound on my mouse for situations like this..
I'm of course talking about tiles version. I got the one from RSS.

Edit:
Oh, also the graphical changes (Especially the actions toolbar) really did disorient me for a while..

I reporduced this and reported it.

Report future bugs here:
https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/main_page.php

Oh, also less of a feedback but I have a small question. In tiles there is the new bar which displays abilities in the same manner as spells. Now, what does the numbers next to ability icons mean?

Seems to me to be the chance of failure.

Well..
I'm playing priest right now and I got "0" on recite and renounce rel. (correctly), but I have a large "11" on vitalisation, while I have "(1%)" in it's description. So if it is supposed to be failure then something isn't working.

MIC132 wrote:Well..
I'm playing priest right now and I got "0" on recite and renounce rel. (correctly), but I have a large "11" on vitalisation, while I have "(1%)" in it's description. So if it is supposed to be failure then something isn't working.

It was bugged yeah. But instead of fixing it, I changed it to display the MP cost of the ability to make it consistent with the spell panel. The fail chance is already displayed above the panel when you mouse over the ability button.

Was under the impression Rock Worms were removed (for some reason), and just encountered a Rock Worm Zombie in 0.12-a0-108.

Rock Worms were removed from the Ashenzari altar vault that can show you the spiders' nest. Not from crawl, I don't think.

jejorda2 wrote:Rock Worms were removed from the Ashenzari altar vault that can show you the spiders' nest. Not from crawl, I don't think.

Oh, good! I like rock worms; I think they add a unique danger.

Can I suggest a buff for Necrophages? They are utterly ignorable and I have not once noticed their ability kick in. Their most prominent feature is the relatively useless Rot status effect.

They might be a little scary if you meet one really early, but the game keeps throwing these at you well past when they are diminished to rat-like status.

There's a plan to rewrite mon-pick.cc, which would make it much easier tweak where monsters generate. Once that happens, I can see a lot of changes being made to stuff like necropages.

There's no need to buff necrophages. They just need a shallower (and probably narrower) depth range.

Alrighty, thanks.

Is there any information on the changes in this version? It's available (as is .11) to tiles players on the new server; I tried it but can't say what's different as .11 is equally new to me.

I really like most of the new tiles that I've seen; thanks a lot to whoever has been working on those.

It's essentially the same as 0.11. Since 0.11 is in pre-release, bug fixes and other important changes will get cherry-picked into the 0.11 branch, while other stuff will only show up in 0.12, but the branch has only been separate for a few days so there's very little difference at this point. (See Gitorious for an actual list of commits).

Moanerette wrote:I tried it but can't say what's different as .11 is equally new to me.

The 0.11 changes are in the changelog. Anything minor that is different but isn't in the changelog is probably a 0.11 change that didn't make the changelog. Major changes that are not in the changelog are a 0.12 thing. For example four spells were recently removed in 0.12.

And stalkers along with them.

I've split the discussion about backgrounds in its own thread.

Is spider no longer a guaranteed branch in trunk?

It was only guaranteed for testing purposes, to make sure it was played a lot. Now it's just part of the 4 branch rotation.

to be clear, it's actually a double rotation. You get either Spider or Snake, and either Swamp or Shoals. That way, you always have one poisonous and one watery branch.

Not sure I like that - shoals has sea snakes, swamp has swamp drakes and swamp dragons. Spider is often waterlogged. The branches overlap each other enough that I believe we'd have more variety if any 2 were picked, as opposed to 1 of 2 and 1 of 2.

eeviac wrote:Not sure I like that - shoals has sea snakes, swamp has swamp drakes and swamp dragons. Spider is often waterlogged. The branches overlap each other enough that I believe we'd have more variety if any 2 were picked, as opposed to 1 of 2 and 1 of 2.

People sometimes make this argument. It's dumb.

Shoals and Swamp are filled to the brim with water. They have some poison enemies, but mostly non-poisonous stuff. People make a big deal of swamp drakes but these only confuse you for about 3 turns, basically can't drown you any more, and meph cloud hardly ever hits anyway.

Spider has only a small amount of water and Snake usually has none. Both have nearly _every_ enemy use a poison attack.

If you can't see why one set is clearly "water" themed and one set is clearly "posion" themed, you're being dense.

I understand, I just value the variety of branch combinations over the variety of themes.

eeviac wrote:I understand, I just value the variety of branch combinations over the variety of themes.

Alright. Sorry if I was a bit harsh in how I worded my response. It's just an argument I've heard so many times now, and has never been particularly convincing (especially w/r/t shoals, which only has a single poison-using enemy). Also, I will concede that in old versions, poison was much more relevant in Swamp (I'm talking about back when drowning was an actual threat).

I was playing trunk webtiles and went into slime. I love the new shading around walls. Makes it much easier to see the clear walking paths.

Vaults got redesigned? I really like it! Maybe Tomb could use a similiar algorithm?

---

I rant into some vault in the abyss which was full of golden eyes behind grates. Wasn't so bad at first, but every time I killed all the enemies more kept spawning! Fighting a never ending onslaught of golden eyes an neqoxecs is so fucking cheap! And then I got teleported to a different part of abyss. That really annoys me.

As was brought up when Grunt posted issue #5898, Tomb should probably stick to the current three encompass vaults it has; there stands a solid balance for teleportation and consistent safe-spots in all three layouts, aside from skipping the second part of Tomb:1 since the second part of Tomb:2 isn't nearly as hard as the rest of the branch. Subvaults or further randomization in each level's vault (or, with a lot of consideration and editing, mix-and-matching levels or even the entire Tomb) don't effect the difficulty nearly as much as the idea of randomly-generating the branch, and the branch may get predictable but stands as one of the strongest and well-established branches; I'd rather see other branches get more thorough attention first.

hangedman_abyss_rune_macabre_mess is possibly the nastiest of the abyssal rune vaults. The "respawning" was the three giant orange brains within the vault casting Shadow Creatures: perhaps you didn't notice their casting messages (The giant orange brain pulsates.) in the flood of messages from the monsters in the vault, or hadn't faced enough of them for long enough to know they cast Shadow Creatures. (I would prefer all player and monster summoning spells to have a message, since it seems that from time to time people do not connect monsters casting to summons appearing [or different messages or the smoke or the experience or the label on examination, but I digress], but that'd probably just contribute to the noise summons generally produce.)

I think the danger of the vault as a rune vault is fine (though I regret special-casing these giant orange brains to not blink out of their cages, which worsens the spoilers inherent in the vault); it is substantially easier if you wait in the vault's chokepoint to fight the abominations and move around the outside rim of the vault to limit the number of monsters in sight, and ending abyss visits faster with a nasty vault makes for an interesting choice. Also, the abyss re-write bh has planned makes abyss-teleporting in vaults happen less (since vaults are islands of relative stability for the abyssal morphing).

claws wrote:Also, the abyss re-write bh has planned makes abyss-teleporting in vaults happen less (since vaults are islands of relative stability for the abyssal morphing).

less is nice, but can we make it happen never? same with exit gates in los

That's one of the few situations I put on my amulet of statis

There are too many tabs now. I was a fan of idea of dividing the commands but now I hate it. I can't afford to keep both tabs open (1280x800), and using them otherwise is irritating as hell. Too many unnecessary clicks with opening/closing the tabs. They actually force you to use keyboard, which makes no sence in terms of mouse-friendly interface.
I am suggesting this:
- merge the spells and abilities. In many cases they can be fitted in one row. All spells can be placed first and abilities last. For additional differentiation there can be different backgrounds (or borders) for both. Let's say bluish for spells and yellowish for abilities.
- merge the commands. "Action" commands can be placed first and marked with different background/border.
- maybe get rid of memorization and skill tabs completely. I don't see how they can be usefull given that with the same ease (one click) you can access full menus of memorization and skill managing. But it's not critical.
- please think of making a customizable tab where you can drag any icon from any other tab. It would be so cool to create one-row tab for most usable commands and traveling icons.
- make the width of menu customizable in init.txt and stop it from auto-changing when font size is changing.
- make mini-mod for stats field to free the vertical space. HP/SP/effects only.

Merging the tabs is fine for tiles players, but us console players will suffer (more scrolling needed, more keys, more Shift, etc.). It will slow console players down, and speed is important to some of us, including me. I don't think it's a very good idea.

I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough and now we talking about different things. And I keep forgetting about console version. I meant rows of icons gathered in right GUI block. I'm pretty sure that they are used only in tiles version. And messing with them in no way changes actual menus which are the same (I guess) for all versions. At least it shouldn't.

white_noise wrote:- merge the spells and abilities. In many cases they can be fitted in one row. All spells can be placed first and abilities last. For additional differentiation there can be different backgrounds (or borders) for both. Let's say bluish for spells and yellowish for abilities.

I don't know. They are different enough to be put on 2 separate panels (yeah, I stopped calling them tabs once they were detached). In many cases, they don't fit in on row. Maybe small panels could be put on the same line when they are small enough. That would require quite some work, but may be worth it.

- merge the commands. "Action" commands can be placed first and marked with different background/border.

No. Maybe some actions should be moved from on panel to the other, but the system panel has enough rarely used commands that you don't want to have it uses screen estate all the time. Having them all on one panel just make a huge one that you can't fit on a small res screen. Also, 1 big panel doesn't use much less space than 2 smaller ones, it's just less flexible.

- maybe get rid of memorization and skill tabs completely. I don't see how they can be usefull given that with the same ease (one click) you can access full menus of memorization and skill managing. But it's not critical.

I agree. They are already disabled in the android port. I don't think anybody ever use them, we'd better completely remove them.

- please think of making a customizable tab where you can drag any icon from any other tab. It would be so cool to create one-row tab for most usable commands and traveling icons.

Yeah, that would be neat. More urgent and easier to implement is dynamically attach and detached panels. But I'll think about it, it's a good idea. At least, one that can be configured with an option should be doable, we'll see later about drag and drop (which would also need to save options from the game which cannot be done yet).

- make the width of menu customizable in init.txt and stop it from auto-changing when font size is changing.
- make mini-mod for stats field to free the vertical space. HP/SP/effects only.

Those are planned.

cerebovssquire wrote:Merging the tabs is fine for tiles players, but us console players will suffer (more scrolling needed, more keys, more Shift, etc.). It will slow console players down, and speed is important to some of us, including me. I don't think it's a very good idea.

Is this a troll or a joke?

it's me not being able to read and not getting that he means actual tabs and not just the P, W, T, etc. displays, sorry

galehar wrote:
- merge the commands. "Action" commands can be placed first and marked with different background/border.

No. Maybe some actions should be moved from on panel to the other, but the system panel has enough rarely used commands that you don't want to have it uses screen estate all the time. Having them all on one panel just make a huge one that you can't fit on a small res screen. Also, 1 big panel doesn't use much less space than 2 smaller ones, it's just less flexible.

The commands now takes two rows. Commands AND system can be fitted in two rows as well. This kind of difference matters when you count every pixel and forced to left some things behind. I am the dude with the small screen and separation do not saves screen space for me. On contrary, it requires more of it. For now both panels has the icons that I would like to use. System panel has character's preview and manage skills. Two of the most used icons in my case. Actually I've noticed that both panels has 'manage skills', but it probably leftover from tabs separation. System commands also has recent messages, mutations, status and discovered items which can be helpful on different stages of the game. In the same time some icons from the commands can be easily cutted off, like contents of inventory (totally unnecessary with inventory panel right there) or drop items (shift+click is much more comfortable and faster way). The only icons that probably deserve to be hidden from the screen is exit and help (maybe player's tile mod) but I doubt they deserve separate panel. My point here is that all really usable icons can be fitted in two rows, pretty much like it was before. And this way it takes less enough space to be used. As I said, I can't fit both panels and still use spells and inventory (the necessary ones, in my opinion) with vertical 800p. And with 786p it probably feels even worse.

1280x800 isn't exactly small screen, we are trying to make it usable on much smaller than that. It doesn't always fit on 2 lines, it depends on the size of the stat area. Set the res to 800x480 and you'll see how the command panels look.
Also, drop items may be useless to you, but it's not to people playing mouse only or with a touch screen interface.
So I agree that it still needs improvement and customization, but merging the panels isn't the way to go. It would make them unusable on (really) small screens.

The Tavern

Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)

Re: Feedback on Trunk deployment (.12)