Current master post-4.1.3

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • wobbly
    replied
    So run is definitely not interrupting properly. I had an invisible green glutton ghost eat a food ration followed by my character killing it by moving the extra step.

    Leave a comment:


  • NightLizard
    replied
    Here's the save and the randarts file. Although I tried a few times with new randarts, so I don't think that's the problem.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • wobbly
    replied
    For vampire strike does "the monster is shielded" mean you lack a free square to move to? If so the presence of an object on a square seems to be causing it to fail.
    Code:
    ##H#
    .@}#
    ##.#
    Last edited by wobbly; March 23, 2019, 06:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick
    replied
    Originally posted by NightLizard
    Windows 10, no message at all: the window just closes. When I restart I start at the level I just entered, but the crash appears next time I find stairs again. Deleting the lore.txt file fixed the problem. Do you want the savefile?
    Yes please, and randart file if you're using randarts.

    Leave a comment:


  • NightLizard
    replied
    Windows 10, no message at all: the window just closes. When I restart I start at the level I just entered, but the crash appears next time I find stairs again. Deleting the lore.txt file fixed the problem. Do you want the savefile?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick
    replied
    Originally posted by NightLizard
    Current nightly crashes every time I descend stairs, it seems to crash only when I copy the monster.txt to my lore.txt to get full monster memory.
    Do you get any message when it crashes? What OS are you using? Has anyone else experienced this?

    I made a change recently that I thought would make the process more robust, so I hope I haven't broken it instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • NightLizard
    replied
    Current nightly crashes every time I descend stairs, it seems to crash only when I copy the monster.txt to my lore.txt to get full monster memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • PowerWyrm
    replied
    I would simply keep the old colors and add new ones.

    Warrior - u
    Mage - r
    Priest - g
    Rogue - b
    Ranger - U
    Paladin - B

    Necromancer - R (that's what I use for PWMAngband)
    Druid - G (seem logical)
    Blackguard - D (it's a "black" guard)

    Leave a comment:


  • wobbly
    replied
    Originally posted by Derakon
    • Warrior - brown
    • Mage - red
    • Druid - light green
    • Priest - dark blue
    • Necromancer - pink
    • Paladin - light blue
    • Rogue - dark grey
    • Ranger - dark green
    • Blackguard - light grey
    I'd be fine with most of this list other then preferring yellow for priest & white for paladin. I suspect putting priest on the old rogue colour is going to cause a bunch of confusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick
    replied
    Originally posted by Chud
    Hmm, so if I understand, the light penalty is applied to a "true" (i.e. not INT-limited) failure rate? So, perhaps I have a true failure rate of -10% (say), which is then corrected to 4%; standing in light applies a penalty that raises it to 2%, which is then also corrected to 4%? Making up the numbers there, but that's the mechanism?
    Yes, this is correct.

    Previously necromancers had a penalty to CON when in light. There was a discussion here which ended up deciding that failrate was a better penalty. During that discussion someone (I suspect Derakon ) suggested that the penalty should be pre-failrate, because as a necromancer gets more powerful they should be able to overcome light as a penalty, and I agreed. But we can keep thinking about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chud
    replied
    Originally posted by Derakon
    In other words, you're high-enough level that when casting simple spells, your failure rate "should" be below 4%, even when standing in the light. But since your INT is only 18/50, your failure rate must be at least 4%.
    Hmm, so if I understand, the light penalty is applied to a "true" (i.e. not INT-limited) failure rate? So, perhaps I have a true failure rate of -10% (say), which is then corrected to 4%; standing in light applies a penalty that raises it to 2%, which is then also corrected to 4%? Making up the numbers there, but that's the mechanism?

    Leave a comment:


  • Derakon
    replied
    I'm pretty sure that 4% is the minimum failure rate when at 18/50 INT. So what's going on here is that the game calculates a failure rate based on your level, the spell's difficulty, your INT, and any relevant modifiers (like being stunned, poisoned, or in this case, standing in the light). It then makes sure that your actual failure rate is not lower than your stat-defined minimum.

    In other words, you're high-enough level that when casting simple spells, your failure rate "should" be below 4%, even when standing in the light. But since your INT is only 18/50, your failure rate must be at least 4%.

    I guess the standing-in-light penalty could apply after the stat-based minimum is applied. I don't really have an opinion on this -- haven't played necromancers yet.

    I do think it's a good idea to have a status bar line to tell the player "Hey, you're standing in the light, and that's significant for you."

    Leave a comment:


  • Chud
    replied
    Another small observation on necros... I see they have a spell failure rate penalty when standing in the light, but also that goes away as you level up. Currently, my failure rate for low level spells doesn't change anymore based on the light (4% either way, CL16 and INT 18/50), though higher level spells still show the penalty.

    This makes sense I suppose, as you level up and get more skilled, but it also reduces the differentiation of the necromancer class. I'd prefer to keep the uniqueness, I think, and always have a meaningful penalty in the light -- maybe same as you get when stunned? (Your status line could say "Migraine"... :-) )

    Just a thought, in the interest of keeping the classes as distinct as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gwarl
    replied
    Originally posted by PowerWyrm
    Also what makes no sense is having classes using the same realm and different books, it's really confusing to find a nature book and not being about to use it because it's not for druid but for rangers.
    Quoting to express support for this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derakon
    replied
    Reducing the number of books sounds like a good thing to me, from a "too much junk" perspective if nothing else.

    While I do think that mages work best as red (for difficult-to-articulate reasons), I can also definitely see an argument for druids being green. Maybe priests could be blue? We'd need to move rogues away from that, but that's easy: they're the stealthy class, they should be dark grey instead of blackguards. That would suggest a color list like this:
    • Warrior - brown
    • Mage - red
    • Druid - light green
    • Priest - dark blue
    • Necromancer - pink
    • Paladin - light blue
    • Rogue - dark grey
    • Ranger - dark green
    • Blackguard - light grey

    Leave a comment:

Working...
😀
😂
🥰
😘
🤢
😎
😞
😡
👍
👎