Bugs:
- Riding a horse is oddly slow due to sounds? (Solution: Make horse sound async.)
- Scrollbar and done button in shops doesn't work
Features:
- Custom horse/boat graphics
- "Force town exit" / "Force town entrance" special nodes, and maybe a way to link a town to a boat
- Change names of Unblockable and Special damage (Special becomes Unblockable, and Unblockable becomes Doom maybe?)
- Turn Invulnerable into a percentage and/or add resistance percentages for physical and (maybe) unblockable damage
- Officially support negative resistance values, to get an effect similar to Absorb Spells. Needs a different message when resistance value is negative.

Places where Unblockable damage is used:
[Jul 14@7:26:38pm] celmin: Wound/Wrack uses Unblockable (but you already knew that).
[Jul 14@7:26:58pm] celmin: Turn/Dispel Undead uses Unblockable.
[Jul 14@7:27:14pm] celmin: As does Ravage Spirit.
[Jul 14@7:27:53pm] celmin: Death touch monster ability uses Unblockable.
[Jul 14@7:28:26pm] celmin: Shockwave uses Unblockable.
[Jul 14@7:29:23pm] celmin: Doom (the item ability) uses Unblockable.
[Jul 14@7:29:58pm] celmin: As does the inverted Major Healing (which didn't exist in legacy).
[Jul 14@7:30:11pm] celmin: And Affect Health items.
[Jul 14@7:31:39pm] celmin: An item that forcibly ends flight can in some situation inflict Unblockable damage.

Sound 34 seems to be wrong.
Sound 40 sounds a bit different.
Sound 60 sounds wrong in the Mac version!?
Sound 97 is completely different.


[Jul 15@5:03:21pm] Tados: BUG REPORT:
[Jul 15@5:04:00pm] Tados: When the automap is open, dialog boxes open behind the main window and automap. If I hadn't moved the main window to the side prior, I wouldn't have seen it or been able to continue.
[Jul 15@5:05:43pm] Tados: Also, weren't the shortcut letters between the button and the spell name in the spell dialogs before? It's hard to read and I keep trying to cast the spell to the right of the name accidentally.
[Jul 15@5:07:30pm] Tados: Talked to Nine Variations guard. On a whim, clicked Record to see if it still crashed. It did. "Error!!! bad allocation"

[Jul 15@5:12:24pm] Tados: Suggestion: Preference to make end fight be F as well as start fight, like in the new Spidweb games.
[Jul 15@5:15:58pm] Tados: Dialog pic in the level of 9Var following the first with custom graphics displays the first half of the Emblem and the first half of the bad guy.
[Jul 15@5:16:05pm] Tados: Instead of whatever it's supposed to be.
[Jul 15@5:29:27pm] Tados: BUG REPORT: When an apostrophe is placed in a dialog box immediately below a lower-case g, the bottom loop of the g swallows the apostrophe.
[Jul 15@5:30:08pm] Tados: It bumps into all high characters, actually. Perhaps consider broadening the spacing between lines.
[Jul 15@5:34:48pm] Tados: SUGGESTION: Customizable end-scenario messages. If you get a bad ending and don't die but hit an End Scenario node, or if you just turn around and leave right at the beginning, it's bizarre that it congratulates you. If not customizable, perhaps a selection: Victory, Total Failure/Bad End, Partial Failure/Not The Best Ending, Gave Up?
[Jul 15@5:35:34pm] Tados: SUGGESTION: The female scream has a grating buzz sound over it. Find a way to remove it?
[Jul 15@5:44:24pm] Tados: BUG REPORT: Discovered why I need to refocus the main window after closing a dialog sometimes, but not all the time: If the next key is pressed too soon after choosing a button in a dialog box, it needs to be refocused, but if you wait a bit, you can continue.
[Jul 15@5:46:44pm] Tados: HOORAYISHNESS:
[Jul 15@5:47:58pm] Tados: Terror From the Park has four problems: Grating buzz, too-close text, dialog box refocus issue, and of course the unimplemented Win/Mac graphics difference negotiator. Otherwise, it runs perfectly!





[Jul 18@10:16:51am] Tados: Hello, sir.
[Jul 18@10:17:09am] celticminstrel: Oh hi.
[Jul 18@10:18:18am] Tados: Did you fix everything yet?
[Jul 18@10:18:32am] celticminstrel: No?
[Jul 18@10:18:54am] Tados: Not even the economy and the corrupt political system in the United States?
[Jul 18@10:19:12am] celticminstrel: ...
[Jul 18@10:19:35am] celticminstrel: At least you're a bit better off than here.
[Jul 18@10:19:55am] Tados: Really?
[Jul 18@10:20:12am] celticminstrel: You have Obama. We have Stephen Harper.
[Jul 18@10:20:24am] Tados: Obama is underwhelming but not corrupt.
[Jul 18@10:20:36am] celticminstrel: Exactly.
[Jul 18@10:20:59am] Tados: Obama has never displayed any hint of corruption, so much as the typical Democrat lack of spine.
[Jul 18@10:21:29am] celticminstrel: If you says o.
[Jul 18@10:21:31am] celticminstrel: ^so
[Jul 18@10:22:13am] Tados: At least you have socialized health care.
[Jul 18@10:22:21am] celticminstrel: I suppose.
[Jul 18@10:22:49am] Tados: I'm afraid to leave the state of Massachusetts because it has the best mental health care system in the country when really it could be the whole country. That's the thing that pisses me off the most.
[Jul 18@10:22:53am] Tados: But anyroad.
[Jul 18@10:23:41am] Tados: Um... I had something to talk about regarding BoE but I can't remember what it was.
[Jul 18@10:23:45am] celticminstrel: Oh?
[Jul 18@10:23:58am] Tados: Yes.
[Jul 18@10:24:08am] celticminstrel: Well, I'll wait until you remember.
[Jul 18@10:25:10am] Tados: Might have had to do with shields.
[Jul 18@10:25:19am] Tados: In original BoE there were two shield options.
[Jul 18@10:25:27am] celticminstrel: There's still two shield types.
[Jul 18@10:25:34am] Tados: So if you had one shield of one type and another of the other type, you could equip two shields.
[Jul 18@10:25:37am] Tados: How does it work?
[Jul 18@10:25:41am] celticminstrel: That's still the case.
[Jul 18@10:25:49am] celticminstrel: How does what work?
[Jul 18@10:26:00am] Tados: Why do we have two shield types and what is the difference?
[Jul 18@10:26:12am] celticminstrel: I haven't the slightest clue.
[Jul 18@10:26:18am] celticminstrel: There's no difference.
[Jul 18@10:26:33am] Tados: Maybe have legacy behavior and change the types to "small shield" and "large shield" for new scenarios?
[Jul 18@10:26:54am] celticminstrel: Then what would the difference be?
[Jul 18@10:27:29am] Tados: You could equip two bucklers in an official, not-Jeff-screwing-up manner? I don't know, it's probably pointless. :P
[Jul 18@10:27:50am] Tados: Or maybe just mark one "Legacy, do not use" or something.
[Jul 18@10:27:57am] celticminstrel: No way.
[Jul 18@10:27:58am] Tados: Or even just disable the button.
[Jul 18@10:28:12am] celticminstrel: Why would you do that.
[Jul 18@10:28:31am] Tados: So old scenarios can still use it but not new ones. It's a confusing mechanic with effects that are not obvious to the designer.
[Jul 18@10:28:59am] celticminstrel: I don't want to bake in legacy options like that.
[Jul 18@10:29:09am] Tados: What?
[Jul 18@10:29:12am] celticminstrel: How is it confusing?
[Jul 18@10:29:22am] Tados: Currently, you have two item types called "shield".
[Jul 18@10:29:46am] Tados: There is no observable difference, except that if you have one of each, if you equip one and then the other you have two shields, but not the reverse.
[Jul 18@10:30:06am] celticminstrel: Eh? You can't equip them in either order?
[Jul 18@10:30:46am] Tados: Maybe you can, I don't know. But there's no way to tell them apart, nor any indication of which is the preferred Shield type for designers to use.
[Jul 18@10:31:00am] Tados: It could create balance problems.
[Jul 18@10:31:02am] celticminstrel: I think I added an indication that the first one is preferred, maybe.
[Jul 18@10:31:09am] Tados: Oh, did you? OK.
[Jul 18@10:31:35am] Tados: But if you're going to allow double shields, why not make it official?
[Jul 18@10:32:01am] celticminstrel: Originally they were both just "Shield". Now they're "Shield" and "Shield 2".
[Jul 18@10:32:05am] celticminstrel: Make it official how?
[Jul 18@10:32:29am] Tados: Just make them the same, all shields can be double-equipped?
[Jul 18@10:32:42am] Tados: I don't know, the whole situation with the shields is just screwy.
[Jul 18@10:32:52am] celticminstrel: So that's an acceptable change to legacy behaviour?
[Jul 18@10:33:09am] Tados: I need coffee and breakfast. Maybe this will make more sense then.
[Jul 18@10:33:12am] celticminstrel: I can do that easily.
[Jul 18@10:33:29am] celticminstrel: If you really think it's a good idea.
[Jul 18@10:33:37am] Tados: I don't know if that's an acceptable change to legacy behavior, but for new format, maybe.
[Jul 18@10:33:45am] Tados: bbiab
[Jul 18@10:34:13am] celticminstrel: Well, I doubt many people would've thought of double-equipping shields...
[Jul 18@10:35:13am] celticminstrel: I feel like there could be more information in the PC Info dialog.
[Jul 18@10:35:20am] celticminstrel: Like the total defence, for example.
[Jul 18@10:39:02am] Tados: Nothing wrong with less hidden info.
[Jul 18@10:40:27am] celticminstrel: I dunno if there's anything else besides total defence.
[Jul 18@10:40:42am] celticminstrel: Maybe to-hit? Is that shown?
[Jul 18@10:40:49am] celticminstrel: Ah, it is.
[Jul 18@10:42:20am] celticminstrel: Single-frame booms seem to have properly-centred text now.
[Jul 18@10:43:05am] celticminstrel: ...uh. What.
[Jul 18@10:43:44am] celticminstrel: That flame explosion clearly said 4 damage. Why was the giant rat undamaged.
[Jul 18@10:43:55am] Tados: What are you playing?
[Jul 18@10:44:09am] celticminstrel: Valley of Dying Things
[Jul 18@10:44:34am] Tados: The writing at the beginning of Bandit Busywork is up to Jeff's standards, definitely, although the plot itself, not so much, IIRC.
[Jul 18@10:44:57am] Tados: And I had another thought.
[Jul 18@10:45:39am] Tados: If and when the scenario lists are condensed into one, make the first page the four Jeff scenarios by default, and then the arrow buttons will display the others.
[Jul 18@10:45:57am] Tados: Best of woth borlds!
[Jul 18@10:46:17am] celticminstrel: That's probably possible, but I'm not going to do that unless we two more main menu buttons.
[Jul 18@10:46:26am] celticminstrel: ^unless we need
[Jul 18@10:46:29am] Tados: People will be arriving soon for a cookout, so have a day!
[Jul 18@10:46:35am] celticminstrel: Uh, okay.
[Jul 18@10:46:39am] celticminstrel: What about the shield thing?
[Jul 18@10:46:45am] Tados: What about it?
[Jul 18@10:46:55am] Tados: I still don't know what the best thing to do is. We need a committee.
[Jul 18@10:46:59am] celticminstrel: Uh, okay?
[Jul 18@10:47:27am] Tados: Get Sylae and Paul in here even though they don't do too much these days. We'll have a meeting of the minds or something. :P
[Jul 18@10:48:52am] Tados: Maybe Lilith will help if we get her attention too. She has an IQ of like a million (seriously, I think it's like 180something) so maybe her brain will think more flexibly than any of ours, and she's been in the BoE community since the very beginning so maybe she'd be interested if you bribed her or something.
[Jul 18@10:49:06am] Tados: Gotta go. Bye.
[Jul 18@10:49:10am] Tados (49a727e8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.167.39.232) left the chat room. (Quit: Page closed)
[Jul 18@1:56:13pm] Tados (49a727e8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.167.39.232) joined the chat room.
[Jul 18@1:56:33pm] Tados: Oh hi.
[Jul 18@2:03:27pm] celticminstrel: Oh hi.
[Jul 18@2:04:23pm] Tados: Ha ha.
[Jul 18@2:04:26pm] celticminstrel: I changed the boom graphics text (both single-frame and animated) to use white-outlined black text.
[Jul 18@2:04:33pm] Tados: Ooh, cool.
[Jul 18@2:05:05pm] celticminstrel: By "white-outlined" I mean "draw the text three times, the first two of which are white and offset by 1 pixel in two directions".
[Jul 18@2:05:29pm] Tados: Wondering, did you get permission from the artist who made those fancy walls? Was it Luz? I forget.
[Jul 18@2:05:31pm] celticminstrel: Anyway, thanks to that, it is now readable on all the animated booms, including the yellow one.
[Jul 18@2:05:36pm] celticminstrel: Fancy walls?
[Jul 18@2:06:11pm] Tados: IIRC you added a bunch of formerly custom walls and such to the terrain graphics.
[Jul 18@2:06:49pm] celticminstrel: I see three additional wall types.
[Jul 18@2:06:54pm] Tados: Yes.
[Jul 18@2:06:55pm] celticminstrel: One is the Exile III stone wall.
[Jul 18@2:06:58pm] Tados: Oh.
[Jul 18@2:07:06pm] celticminstrel: The other two appear to be adapted from preset Blades of Exile walls.
[Jul 18@2:07:25pm] celticminstrel: That was done by Mistb0rn.
[Jul 18@2:07:51pm] celticminstrel: I think there might be some graphics adapted from Luz graphics, but not in the walls.
[Jul 18@2:08:06pm] celticminstrel: Or maybe not.
[Jul 18@2:08:32pm] celticminstrel: I think all these extra floors are also based on preset BoE graphics, though I could be wrong.
[Jul 18@2:08:41pm] celticminstrel: Uh. BoA, not BoE.
[Jul 18@2:08:52pm] Tados: Ah.
[Jul 18@2:09:00pm] Tados: I just wish Jeff would get back to you.
[Jul 18@2:09:10pm] celticminstrel: Me too.
[Jul 18@2:09:17pm] Tados: I'm almost certain BoA graphics and modifications to them are off-limits for inclusion, though.
[Jul 18@2:09:50pm] celticminstrel: If BoA were open-sourced too, they wouldn't be.
[Jul 18@2:10:04pm] celticminstrel: I'm kind of surprised it still isn't.
[Jul 18@2:10:05pm] Tados: The editor is open-source, I think, although it's not Free.
[Jul 18@2:10:18pm] celticminstrel: The editor is, yes.
[Jul 18@2:10:18pm] Tados: And the graphics I'm fairly sure are not included in that license.
[Jul 18@2:10:29pm] Tados: As in they're owned fully by Jeff and Spidweb.
[Jul 18@2:10:30pm] celticminstrel: I'm sure they wouldn't be.
[Jul 18@2:10:41pm] celticminstrel: Included in the editor license, I mean.
[Jul 18@2:10:54pm] celticminstrel: Though they're included with the editor source distribution, I think.
[Jul 18@2:11:06pm] celticminstrel: But that's not GPL, it's some CPL thing, if I recall correctly.
[Jul 18@2:11:11pm] Tados: Yeah.
[Jul 18@2:11:25pm] celticminstrel: Same as BoE's original source release.
[Jul 18@2:14:15pm] • celticminstrel disappears for a bit.
[Jul 18@4:27:39pm] Tados (49a727e8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.167.39.232) left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
[Jul 18@5:39:11pm] Tados (49a727e8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.167.39.232) joined the chat room.
[Jul 18@5:39:57pm] Tados: Boifle.
[Jul 18@5:47:11pm] Tados: New build release temporal guesstimate?
[Jul 18@5:48:31pm] Tados: @celticminstrel
[Jul 18@5:48:48pm] Tados: I don't know if that flashes the title. Mentioning me flashes my title to get my attention but I think I just did it wrong. :P
[Jul 18@6:08:19pm] celticminstrel: Blargback.
[Jul 18@6:08:57pm] celticminstrel: That does notify me, but not by flashing a title.
[Jul 18@6:09:45pm] celticminstrel: The @ is not required.
[Jul 18@6:12:07pm] Tados: Something you do makes the title say "Activity!"
[Jul 18@6:12:16pm] Tados: (I'm using the webclient.)
[Jul 18@6:12:25pm] celticminstrel: That's probably mentioning your name.
[Jul 18@6:12:32pm] celticminstrel: I'm not using the webclient, so it's different.
[Jul 18@6:14:26pm] celticminstrel: I'm going to go through the code to try and make sure that special damage coming from monster, item, or terrain abilities is replaced by "weird" damage.
[Jul 18@6:14:45pm] celticminstrel: Then I'll push it over to Windows, comment out the global exception handler, and send you a build. Probably.
[Jul 18@6:15:04pm] Tados: Would it be worth making special damage one frame things for undead and demon damage?
[Jul 18@6:15:13pm] celticminstrel: ?
[Jul 18@6:15:32pm] Tados: Like, when a demon hits you and does demon damage, or an undead hits you and does undead damage.
[Jul 18@6:15:43pm] Tados: Do you know what the difference is, btw? I forget if you told me.
[Jul 18@6:15:59pm] celticminstrel: It might be worth it. I would think of undead/demon damage as a variant of physical though.
[Jul 18@6:16:13pm] celticminstrel: I didn't tell you. I'll check it out and get back to you on it.
[Jul 18@6:16:32pm] celticminstrel: Looks like special damage is also used in one place we didn't account for before - bane weapons.
[Jul 18@6:17:01pm] celticminstrel: eg, Demonslayer
[Jul 18@6:17:39pm] celticminstrel: I think that was always the case, too. Should I leave it that way?
[Jul 18@6:17:39pm] Tados: Ohhh.
[Jul 18@6:17:49pm] Tados: I was thinking about that.
[Jul 18@6:18:16pm] Tados: So Special was originally starvation, bashing, assassination, and bane?
[Jul 18@6:18:46pm] celticminstrel: No, starvation and bashing were originally unblockable.
[Jul 18@6:19:07pm] celticminstrel: But unblockable and special are currently equivalent when applied to PCs, I think.
[Jul 18@6:19:39pm] Tados: There would be no difference for legacy scenarios, right?
[Jul 18@6:19:47pm] celticminstrel: Flaming weapons might've been special too, not sure...
[Jul 18@6:19:58pm] celticminstrel: I don't think there would be a difference for legacy scenarios.
[Jul 18@6:21:14pm] celticminstrel: Yeah, it looks like any item ability that did bonus damage used special damage.
[Jul 18@6:21:29pm] celticminstrel: Hmm.
[Jul 18@6:21:36pm] Tados: Lightning missiles and Flaming weapons too?
[Jul 18@6:21:43pm] celticminstrel: I think so.
[Jul 18@6:21:58pm] Tados: Could you remind me the difference between Unblockable and Special in legacy BoE?
[Jul 18@6:22:04pm] celticminstrel: I don't remember which abilities these numbers mean.
[Jul 18@6:22:29pm] celticminstrel: The damage routine (for monsters) took two separate damage amounts - base damage, and special damage.
[Jul 18@6:22:49pm] celticminstrel: Base damage is reduced according to immunities. Special damage is never touched.
[Jul 18@6:23:10pm] celticminstrel: The total damage take in the redued base damage plus the special damage (and it's even displayed seperately).
[Jul 18@6:23:16pm] celticminstrel: ^separately
[Jul 18@6:23:20pm] Tados: OK.
[Jul 18@6:23:46pm] celticminstrel: Special damage only existed in the monster damage routing. There was no equivalent for PCs.
[Jul 18@6:24:36pm] celticminstrel: Which makes sense, since bane abilities and assassination could not be used against PCs. (Technically that has changed, but in practice it's still the case since there's still no way to get a PC-on-PC attack.)
[Jul 18@6:24:51pm] Tados: Missiles.
[Jul 18@6:25:07pm] celticminstrel: Assassination and bane doesn't apply there.
[Jul 18@6:25:08pm] Tados: Lightning feces, throw it at Thissa.
[Jul 18@6:25:23pm] celticminstrel: (Since the only bane missile abilities were demon and undead, as I recall.)
[Jul 18@6:25:35pm] Tados: There is an ability called Lightning.
[Jul 18@6:25:46pm] celticminstrel: When I said a PC-on-PC attack, I meant melee attack.
[Jul 18@6:25:49pm] Tados: It can be given to melee weapons but it was intended for missiles.
[Jul 18@6:26:09pm] Tados: Yes, but there was always the ability to Lightning a PC.
[Jul 18@6:26:11pm] celticminstrel: Yes, there's lightning.
[Jul 18@6:27:04pm] Tados: In terms of things like resistances, Special and Unblockable were exactly the same, except for the Bane abilities targetting specific types, right?
[Jul 18@6:27:16pm] Tados: If that's so, I don't see the harm in making them Weird damage.
[Jul 18@6:27:43pm] celticminstrel: The only difference is that Unblockable (ie "weird") can be reduced by invulnerability.
[Jul 18@6:28:08pm] Tados: Oh, that poses a problem then.
[Jul 18@6:28:25pm] celticminstrel: I could leave the bane as special.
[Jul 18@6:28:36pm] Tados: You could.
[Jul 18@6:28:49pm] Tados: Is Special mentioned anywhere in the text area?
[Jul 18@6:29:06pm] Tados: For that matter, is any other damage specified in text anywhere the player will see?
[Jul 18@6:29:11pm] celticminstrel: It looks like lightning missiles didn't affect PCs in the original code.
[Jul 18@6:29:13pm] Tados: *any other damage type
[Jul 18@6:29:18pm] Tados: Oh, OK.
[Jul 18@6:29:21pm] celticminstrel: Um. I'm not quite sure what you mean>
[Jul 18@6:29:23pm] celticminstrel: ^?
[Jul 18@6:29:37pm] Tados: I know you beefed up the text area stuff.
[Jul 18@6:29:40pm] celticminstrel: (It looks like lightning missiles would damage PCs as if they were not enchanted.)
[Jul 18@6:29:52pm] Tados: Does it ever say, "Giant Rat takes 8 Fire Damage"?
[Jul 18@6:29:56pm] celticminstrel: No.
[Jul 18@6:30:06pm] Tados: So they'd never see any of the damage type names?
[Jul 18@6:30:23pm] celticminstrel: Special damage sort of gets special treatment, but that actually applies to any other bonus damage from item abilities.
[Jul 18@6:30:27pm] celticminstrel: Not in the transcript.
[Jul 18@6:30:36pm] celticminstrel: In the item ability dialog, maybe.
[Jul 18@6:30:59pm] Tados: Ah. And Special is never going to be a choice there, so it doesn't matter that it has an odd name.
[Jul 18@6:31:21pm] celticminstrel: Yes, the only place I intend to expose special damage to the designer is in the special node system.
[Jul 18@6:31:27pm] Tados: OK.
[Jul 18@6:31:36pm] celticminstrel: So should I leave bane as special damage?
[Jul 18@6:31:42pm] Tados: Well then it's fine I guess.
[Jul 18@6:31:43pm] Tados: Yes.
[Jul 18@6:31:46pm] celticminstrel: 'kay
[Jul 18@6:32:10pm] celticminstrel: (I'm calling it bane because that's the D&D name, but the source, and I think the editor too, calls it slayer.)
[Jul 18@6:32:33pm] Tados: Yeah.
[Jul 18@6:33:21pm] Tados: I recall hearing, during initial post-open-source code dissection, while we were slamming our faces against the wall in frustration, it was discovered what Demon and Undead damage actually did.
[Jul 18@6:34:29pm] celticminstrel: I think they're mostly the same as physical? I guess they'd pierce armour though, since only physical damage is reduced by armour.
[Jul 18@6:34:37pm] celticminstrel: Unless I'm wrong.
[Jul 18@6:34:57pm] celticminstrel: I'm in the middle of going through everywhere that special damage is mentioned, once I'm done that I'll look up demon and undead damage.
[Jul 18@6:35:00pm] Tados: Armor piercing! Right. But there's two types, so there may be another difference between the two.
[Jul 18@6:35:19pm] celticminstrel: They're reduced by different item abilities.
[Jul 18@6:35:30pm] celticminstrel: I think there were "protection from undead/demon" abilities, right?
[Jul 18@6:35:35pm] Tados: Oh, right.
[Jul 18@6:35:39pm] celticminstrel: Those reduced by damage type, not by race.
[Jul 18@6:35:51pm] celticminstrel: Which is kinda counterintuitive.
[Jul 18@6:36:09pm] celticminstrel: I wouldn't mind changing the names of demon and undead damage as well, honestly.
[Jul 18@6:36:17pm] Tados: Why?
[Jul 18@6:36:31pm] Tados: If they're only applied by attacks from those types, it makes sense, doesn't it?
[Jul 18@6:36:37pm] celticminstrel: Because it seems to be that it could be confusing to have demons/undead both as a damage types and as a race.
[Jul 18@6:36:51pm] celticminstrel: But I guess it's okay.
[Jul 18@6:37:07pm] Tados: Given that they are literally armor-piercing attacks you could call them Piercing Damage. Or maybe Demonic and Death?
[Jul 18@6:37:21pm] celticminstrel: Uh. Looks like I mistakenly made bonus damage special when used against a PC. Whoops!
[Jul 18@6:37:37pm] celticminstrel: Fortunately, that's still an unreachable code path.
[Jul 18@6:37:47pm] Tados: I mean "undead" is both an adjective and a noun. :P
[Jul 18@6:38:02pm] celticminstrel: (By bonus damage I mean things like flaming weapons.)
[Jul 18@6:38:08pm] Tados: "Necrotic"?
[Jul 18@6:38:12pm] celticminstrel: Could do.
[Jul 18@6:38:28pm] celticminstrel: I won't change them right now.
[Jul 18@6:38:34pm] celticminstrel: Since I'm not sure yet.
[Jul 18@6:38:42pm] Tados: I think they're fine as Demon and Undead.
[Jul 18@6:38:54pm] Tados: Wait.
[Jul 18@6:39:16pm] Tados: No, confusion may be had indeed. But I don't like Death or Necrotic.
[Jul 18@6:40:11pm] Tados: "Spectral" seems to be mostly ghost-specific...
[Jul 18@6:41:18pm] Tados: Maybe just "Deathly".
[Jul 18@6:41:51pm] celticminstrel: Interestingly, invulnerability reduces to 0 for PCs, but only to 10% for monsters.
[Jul 18@6:43:10pm] Tados: I've got it!
[Jul 18@6:43:18pm] Tados: "Demonic" and "Macabre"!
[Jul 18@6:43:29pm] Tados: Or "Grim".
[Jul 18@6:43:33pm] Tados: You've got choices.
[Jul 18@6:43:35pm] celticminstrel: I dunno.
[Jul 18@6:43:47pm] celticminstrel: There's also Unholy, but it's not clear which of the two that'd be a better fit for.
[Jul 18@6:44:13pm] Tados: No, there are good undead in some scenarios.
[Jul 18@6:44:24pm] Tados: I have my lich named Skull Doug, although granted he won't be in a scenario most likely.
[Jul 18@6:44:51pm] Tados: The lich known as The Master from the Spheres trilogy is more eccentric than evil.
[Jul 18@6:45:48pm] celticminstrel: I don't think "unholy" necessarily has to equate with "evil", though there's certainly a strong tendency.
[Jul 18@6:47:28pm] celticminstrel: I seem to have labelled demon damage as "unholy" already in at least one place.
[Jul 18@6:47:42pm] celticminstrel: While for undead it's the misleading "chilling".
[Jul 18@6:47:58pm] celticminstrel: This is for monster touch abilities.
[Jul 18@6:48:24pm] celticminstrel: Ah, looks like I was wrong. Undead and demon damage don't pierce armour.
[Jul 18@6:50:01pm] celticminstrel: This is irrelevant to legacy, but while all three are reduced by Protection From Physical, demon and undead are reduced less than pure physical.
[Jul 18@6:52:09pm] celticminstrel: I used "necrotic" somewhere too.
[Jul 18@6:52:51pm] celticminstrel: Actually, that's also monster touch abilities, so I call the same ability by two different names in two different places. Whoops.
[Jul 18@6:54:46pm] Tados: So...
[Jul 18@6:57:04pm] Tados: I'm trying to break this down...
[Jul 18@6:57:28pm] celticminstrel: I guess the only difference between physical, undead, and demon damage is what reduces them.
[Jul 18@6:58:20pm] Tados: Let's say I'm wearing 6 mundane armor. You're a demon and you roll 10 damage. Without getting into mathematics but for illustrative purposes, what would the final damage be for 1. Mundane armor, 2. Protection from Physical armor, and 3. Protection from Demons armor?
[Jul 18@6:58:33pm] Tados: Wait. Forget the first sentence. :P
[Jul 18@6:58:46pm] Tados: You're a demon and you roll 10 damage. Without getting into mathematics but for illustrative purposes, what would the final damage be for 1. Mundane armor, 2. Protection from Physical armor, and 3. Protection from Demons armor?
[Jul 18@6:59:08pm] Tados: Mundane armor reduces damage via basic item stats equally, right?
[Jul 18@6:59:49pm] celticminstrel: Armour reduction is rolled.
[Jul 18@7:00:04pm] celticminstrel: Protection from XYZ reduction is constant.
[Jul 18@7:00:14pm] celticminstrel: Protection reduction from the item protection stat is also rolled.
[Jul 18@7:00:51pm] celticminstrel: If you assume your mundane armour is, for example, a helm with a level of 1 and protection of 0, then the final result would be 9 damage.
[Jul 18@7:02:16pm] celticminstrel: If it's a Protection from Physical helmet with an item ability level of 5, then the resultant damage would be 8.
[Jul 18@7:02:39pm] celticminstrel: If it's a Protection from Demonic Damage helmet with an item ability level of 2, the resultant damage would again be 8.
[Jul 18@7:02:59pm] celticminstrel: The same holds true for a Protection from Demons helmet with an item ability level of 2.
[Jul 18@7:03:38pm] celticminstrel: If you weren't a demon, in the protection from physical case you'd only do 7 damage.
[Jul 18@7:07:50pm] celticminstrel: Hmm, it looks like monsters are not affected by damaging terrains.
[Jul 18@7:08:08pm] celticminstrel: They just avoid them altogether.
[Jul 18@7:08:16pm] celticminstrel: (Unless they're immune to the damage.)
[Jul 18@7:09:30pm] Tados: OK. So Prot. from Phys. would receive 3 out of 6 damage for Phys. Dmg, and 4 out of 6 for Demon Dmg. Prot. from Demon would receive 6 out of 6 for Phys. Dmg. and... 1 out of 6 for Demon Dmg? Using bullshit numbers for illustrative ratio sake, do I understand?
[Jul 18@7:10:18pm] celticminstrel: Possibly?
[Jul 18@7:10:25pm] celticminstrel: The numbers don't make any sense.
[Jul 18@7:10:48pm] Tados: Like, if the mob rolls 6 damage, and I'm wearing a helm of each of those two Protections.
[Jul 18@7:11:03pm] celticminstrel: Well, it depends on the help, right?
[Jul 18@7:11:04pm] Tados: In different instances, obviously.
[Jul 18@7:11:07pm] celticminstrel: ^helm
[Jul 18@7:11:08pm] Tados: Help?
[Jul 18@7:11:09pm] Tados: Oh.
[Jul 18@7:11:13pm] Tados: Yeah.
[Jul 18@7:11:31pm] celticminstrel: What's the helm's item level? What's its ability strength?
[Jul 18@7:12:07pm] Tados: They're bullshit numbers. I can't understand the numbers. Assume the numbers are the same except for one being Prot. from Phys. and the other being Prot. from Demon.
[Jul 18@7:12:30pm] celticminstrel: The damage reduction for Protection from Demonic Damage or Protection from Demons is half the ability strength.
[Jul 18@7:12:40pm] celticminstrel: That's not counting the reduction from the armour itself.
[Jul 18@7:12:48pm] celticminstrel: And of course that's only if it's a demon.
[Jul 18@7:13:16pm] Tados: OK.
[Jul 18@7:13:34pm] celticminstrel: Protect from Physical is the same against physical damage, but also reduces one-fifth the ability strength against demonic damage (and one-quarter against undead damage), with a minimum of 1.
[Jul 18@7:14:33pm] Tados: OK, so against the relevant damage type they're all 1/2, but against phys. the special ones are reduced less than Phys, right?
[Jul 18@7:14:40pm] celticminstrel: Yes.
[Jul 18@7:14:47pm] Tados: And by special I don't mean Special.
[Jul 18@7:14:48pm] Tados: Got it.
[Jul 18@7:15:02pm] Tados: So I had thoughts but now you say Undead and Demon have different fractions, which complicates things.
[Jul 18@7:15:18pm] Tados: But my thoughts were:
[Jul 18@7:16:14pm] Tados: Eliminate Demon and Undead damage altogether. Given that they're only triggered in legacy by the specific Creature Types and nothing else, use relations between Creature Type and Protection type instead.
[Jul 18@7:16:45pm] Tados: Instead of having the extra layer of separation in between.
[Jul 18@7:16:58pm] Tados: But with the 1/5 vs. 1/4 thing, it's a little more complicated.
[Jul 18@7:17:32pm] celticminstrel: They could've also been triggered by a special node in legacy.
[Jul 18@7:18:16pm] Tados: My idea would have enabled easy creature/attack/armor relations for any of the creature types, including custom creature types.
[Jul 18@7:18:33pm] celticminstrel: I'm not sure I follow.
[Jul 18@7:18:52pm] Tados: Let's say I want Protection from Sliths.
[Jul 18@7:19:20pm] Tados: Sliths, under the Demon/Undead Damage scheme, would have to do Slith damage for that to work, right?
[Jul 18@7:20:06pm] Tados: Instead, just have the game say, "The Creature Type is a Slith. Therefore, Protection from Sliths will reduce damage from this creature. Slith Slayer will do more to this creature."
[Jul 18@7:20:08pm] celticminstrel: No, there's separate Protection From Damage Type and Protection From Race abilities.
[Jul 18@7:20:24pm] Tados: Yeah, but those aren't legacy.
[Jul 18@7:20:30pm] celticminstrel: Which is likely to be confusing, since that means there's two ways to get Protection from Demons.
[Jul 18@7:20:44pm] Tados: Right, hence, eliminate Demon and Undead Damage.
[Jul 18@7:20:56pm] celticminstrel: Legacy had some Protection from Race abilities, I believe? I can't quite remember though.
[Jul 18@7:21:06pm] celticminstrel: Okay, so what if a special node requested demon or undead damage?
[Jul 18@7:21:07pm] Tados: It did, yes.
[Jul 18@7:21:14pm] Tados: In a legacy scenario?
[Jul 18@7:21:23pm] Tados: First of all I don't think it ever happened.
[Jul 18@7:21:42pm] celticminstrel: But it was possible.
[Jul 18@7:21:46pm] Tados: But if it did, there could easily be a legacy compatibility check and a porting-to-new-format compatibility routine.
[Jul 18@7:21:57pm] Tados: Right?
[Jul 18@7:22:05pm] Tados: And I'm not done, please hold.
[Jul 18@7:22:39pm] Tados: So, to account for the 1/5 vs 1/4 difference, for new format scenarios, have a field next to the Creature Type.
[Jul 18@7:23:08pm] Tados: "% Damage Reduced"
[Jul 18@7:23:20pm] Tados: Or something along those lines. There are people shouting downstairs and I lost my train of thought. :P
[Jul 18@7:23:43pm] Tados: I don't know if I meant "reduced" or something else, but you might know what I mean, I hope.
[Jul 18@7:23:47pm] Tados: Thoughts?
[Jul 18@7:24:10pm] celticminstrel: I dunno.
[Jul 18@7:24:16pm] Tados: It would default to 20% and 25% or whatever for demons and undead.
[Jul 18@7:24:26pm] celticminstrel: If by "creature type" you mean "race", the list of races is fixed.
[Jul 18@7:24:51pm] Tados: And instead of Demon and Undead in the node, just have Creature Type and select the type.
[Jul 18@7:25:02pm] Tados: The Do Damage node I mean.
[Jul 18@7:27:45pm] Tados: Am I making any sense?
[Jul 18@7:28:15pm] Tados: Wait, so we're not adding possibility for new creature types? :(
[Jul 18@7:32:49pm] celticminstrel: I had no plans to do so.
[Jul 18@7:33:11pm] celticminstrel: That does sound like a reasonable solution with respect to the "do damage" node, I guess.
[Jul 18@7:39:32pm] Tados: I think it would be a good addition to have customizable races per scenario. With this scheme it would basically be an Add Race button, give it a name, it's automatically given a flag for the scenario/series to prevent it from carrying over, and that's it.
[Jul 18@7:45:41pm] celticminstrel: I can add it to the list, I suppose.
[Jul 18@7:46:07pm] Tados: It would obviously involve changing a number of item and monster abilities.
[Jul 18@7:46:29pm] celticminstrel: Would it?
[Jul 18@7:49:23pm] Tados: Well, there's a number of items with Protection from (Race) and (Race) Slayer.
[Jul 18@7:50:51pm] celticminstrel: I can think of a way which wouldn't change those at all.
[Jul 18@7:51:07pm] celticminstrel: But it would limit you to a fixed number of custom races per scenario.
[Jul 18@7:53:12pm] Tados: Oh?
[Jul 18@7:53:37pm] Tados: I have an idea too.
[Jul 18@7:55:01pm] Tados: Keep them, but then just have a separate item type for protection and one for damage against, and perhaps a damage with (for instance, a flaming sword would do fire damage, a sword possessed by a ghost would deal undead damage, etc.) that allows everything, duplicating the others but keeping them for easy compatibility.
[Jul 18@7:55:39pm] Tados: The default-race items would carry over and the others would not, obviously.
[Jul 18@7:55:54pm] celticminstrel: I'm a bit confused what you're talking about here.
[Jul 18@7:55:59pm] Tados: Although a Series Flag would be cool, to override things like that and item-stacking flag stripping.
[Jul 18@7:56:07pm] Tados: What are you talking about, then?
[Jul 18@7:56:19pm] Tados: *item ability not item type
[Jul 18@7:56:30pm] celticminstrel: We were talking about potential for custom races, weren't we?
[Jul 18@7:56:35pm] Tados: Yes.
[Jul 18@7:56:57pm] Tados: Specifically, I thought we were talking about race-item relationships.
[Jul 18@7:57:12pm] celticminstrel: But what you just said doesn't seem to have anything to do with custom races, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by "them".
[Jul 18@7:57:41pm] celticminstrel: Though, if I did read it right, it sounds a lot like the current situation.
[Jul 18@7:57:45pm] Tados: Keep all the standard Protection From X / X Slayer abilities, I mean.
[Jul 18@7:58:13pm] Tados: But just have special item abilities for picking ANY race for protection, damage against, and damage with.
[Jul 18@7:58:24pm] Tados: That simplifies compatibility, right?
[Jul 18@7:58:59pm] celticminstrel: I've already removed the original separate abilities in favour of an ability that lets you select the race or damage type.
[Jul 18@7:59:19pm] celticminstrel: ^of abilities
[Jul 18@7:59:22pm] celticminstrel: ^that let
[Jul 18@7:59:27pm] Tados: Ohhhh.
[Jul 18@7:59:33pm] Tados: I didn't know that. :P
[Jul 18@7:59:37pm] celticminstrel: :P
[Jul 18@7:59:49pm] Tados: Well, then, what's the problem?
[Jul 18@8:00:35pm] celticminstrel: I'm not sure. I think I lost the train of conversation somewhere.
[Jul 18@8:00:42pm] Tados: Ha ha.
[Jul 18@8:00:57pm] celticminstrel: Sorry.
[Jul 18@8:01:07pm] Tados: Did it have to do with the 25% vs. 20% issue?
[Jul 18@8:01:17pm] Tados: And the fact that Demon and Undead have special damage types?
[Jul 18@8:01:22pm] celticminstrel: Uh. Not sure?
[Jul 18@8:01:26pm] celticminstrel: Maybe?
[Jul 18@8:01:41pm] celticminstrel: There was that proposal for removing the demon/undead damage types.
[Jul 18@8:02:13pm] Tados: Yeah, we got off track right after that and I don't think it was ever resolved.



[Jul 27@4:51:28pm] celticminstrel: It would be a preferences setting, but loading a legacy scenario would override it.
[Jul 27@4:51:50pm] celticminstrel: Actually, there would be four possible modes of operation.
[Jul 27@4:52:01pm] celticminstrel: 1. Mac graphics, non-legacy; no adjustments applied.
[Jul 27@4:52:36pm] celticminstrel: No, let me start over.
[Jul 27@4:53:00pm] celticminstrel: 1. Pref = mac, scenario = legacy mac; no adjustments applied.
[Jul 27@4:53:19pm] celticminstrel: 2. Pref = mac, scenario = legacy win; preset graphics are adjusted, but custom graphics are not.
[Jul 27@4:53:32pm] celticminstrel: 3. Pref = mac, scenario = new; no adjustments applied.
[Jul 27@4:53:43pm] celticminstrel: 3. Pref = win, scenario = legacy mac; no adjustments applied.
[Jul 27@4:53:56pm] celticminstrel: 4. Pref = win, scenario = legacy win; no adjustments applied.
[Jul 27@4:54:24pm] celticminstrel: 6. Pref = win, scenario = new; both preset and custom graphics are adjusted.
[Jul 27@4:54:44pm] celticminstrel: Hm, I got one wrong there. The second 3 should be 4, and the 4 should be:
[Jul 27@4:54:58pm] celticminstrel: 5. Pref = win, scenario = legacy win; preset graphics are adjusted, but custom graphics are not.
[Jul 27@4:55:24pm] celticminstrel: I think that's three modes of operation, unless I missed something.
[Jul 27@4:55:49pm] celticminstrel: Basically, you can set your preferred brightness in preferences, but it'll be ignored when playing a legacy scenario.
[Jul 27@4:56:19pm] celticminstrel: I could maybe set it so that it'll only be ignored if the scenario actually uses custom graphics.

[Jul 27@5:03:38pm] celticminstrel: The monsters don't look any brighter to me.
[Jul 27@5:04:27pm] celticminstrel: This is actually kind of annoying, because it makes the automatic adjustment seem a lot harder. I guess I'd have to make sure the custom graphics are never adjusted when opening the scenario in the editor.