Global changelog: discussion

Updates and announcements

Moderators: avatar, creator

User avatar
nienne
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Apr 2019, 00:46
Location: Straya

Global changelog: discussion

Post by nienne » 03 Jul 2019, 05:33

ilmarinen wrote:
01 Jul 2019, 23:28
Spell level adjustments:
  • Splash spell: -2 L
  • Psywarrior spell: -2 L
  • Warlock spell: +1 L
  • Bard spell: +1 L
Just FYI not sure how familiar with warlock functionality some are, but this is going to heavily bork/neuter the class damage output. Warlock spell scaling should be theoretically double (not +1) to be equivalent - as a full output caster class. However that will still also not work as their spells scale each level with shape, not damage. Excluding weapons: L1: blast (single target), L2: chain (multi target), L4: burst (room/all targets). All are d6 default, to d8 with utterdark. The class is not designed at all to scale these spells with hitdice, as their "damage output" comes from hitting more targets (usually +1/5 caster levels). Giving them the standard scaling the other classes now use should effectively turn their pure caster variant into a wet noodle :) Shouldn't do as much to hybrid/melee variant - as they're more likely to rely on AOE & buffs - though it will still put them quite a notch below other hybrid caster options, as their AOEs would only slot in nicely with damage around the x2 mark as well, rather than +1 (then you have L4 and L8 equivalent).

An easy fix to utterdark would just be to make it give +1 or +2 to the hitdice of the base spell, simple fix. The others are maybe not as easy... would probably need different formula if you want them to scale nicely like other classes seem to now. Or redo their damage spell list - either might work if you like!
User avatar
ilmarinen
Posts: 762
Joined: 21 Mar 2019, 22:32

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by ilmarinen » 03 Jul 2019, 07:15

nienne wrote:
03 Jul 2019, 05:33
ilmarinen wrote:
01 Jul 2019, 23:28
blep
Just FYI [..]
I opted out to branch them after all, although it pains me to have more code after so many problems have been solved by gutting.
Warlock spells get 1d8 die, 1d10 for utterdark, 1d3 for their AOE.
That places them in the middle of the spell spell standard and slightly above than they were before implementing it.

And nuked voices from within.
User avatar
nienne
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Apr 2019, 00:46
Location: Straya

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by nienne » 04 Jul 2019, 00:35

Seems it would work fairly well. Funny thing I found when installing warlocks, they are very abnormal from all the other classes. I guess still being special snowflakes while all the other classes play nice...

Not sure if it is any help to you or no, the 2 AOEs they had are of different levels so might be good for varied damage? Unsure if this will scale nicely with your other AOE system as most other classes have them at nicer levels! Lower one was akin to ice storm (hungry darkness L2) & higher more of earthquake/etc equivalent (nightmares made real L3). From memory I think higher one had extra benefits like higher AOEs too but not sure if this is part of your system or still hard coded into spell. Sorry a bit out of the loop I guess, maybe I'm not as helpful as I'd like :)
User avatar
ilmarinen
Posts: 762
Joined: 21 Mar 2019, 22:32

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by ilmarinen » 04 Jul 2019, 05:38

nienne wrote:
04 Jul 2019, 00:35
Seems it would work fairly well. Funny thing I found when installing warlocks, they are very abnormal from all the other classes. I guess still being special snowflakes while all the other classes play nice...

Not sure if it is any help to you or no, the 2 AOEs they had are of different levels so might be good for varied damage? Unsure if this will scale nicely with your other AOE system as most other classes have them at nicer levels! Lower one was akin to ice storm (hungry darkness L2) & higher more of earthquake/etc equivalent (nightmares made real L3). From memory I think higher one had extra benefits like higher AOEs too but not sure if this is part of your system or still hard coded into spell. Sorry a bit out of the loop I guess, maybe I'm not as helpful as I'd like :)
I made it so it is easy to redefine old spells, so you don't have to rewrite them as there are too many. Spell object has sdamage variable that is defined with define_base_damage(int special_snowflake_level_adjust) method.
In old spells you can just replace damage = roll_dice(x,y) with damage=sdamage, and call define_base_damage(0) if you want a reroll say each round.
So for the case of both AOE I replaced dice roll with sdamage. First one was 1d2, second one was 1d3, infernal one was something else.. Now all three are 1d3, which puts them, as of this post, above AOE from other classes... Caster locks definitely needed a buff, so here it is: slight damage table shift, which still keeps them weaker than normal casters, though.
User avatar
yves
Posts: 17
Joined: 27 Mar 2019, 00:21

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by yves » 02 Aug 2019, 01:46

nienne wrote:
02 Aug 2019, 01:40
odin wrote:
01 Aug 2019, 19:13
Weight for bracers has been reduced to 2lb in line with gauntlets. Once again, if you can get a new pair yourself, please do so. If not, ask nicely for an update.
Do they still stack, with this being the case? Until at least very recently you could wear both (at 1AC apiece).
Yes you can wear bracers and gloves and gauntlets if you wish, but may only wear one item in that slot that has enchantments and magical bonuses. The 1 AC stacking is to give an actual benefit to armored characters, whereas unarmored characters usually have another means of increasing their armor (spells, class feats, etc.).
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Gun rules

Post by uriel » 12 Sep 2019, 03:47

ilmarinen wrote:
10 Sep 2019, 12:30
... Firearms are treated more like magic items—things of wonder and mystery—rather than like things that are mass-produced. Few know the strange secrets of firearm creation.
"All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up! See this? This... is my boomstick! - [continuing nonchalantly] - It's a twelve-gauge, double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt-blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right... shop smart: shop S-Mart... Ya got that?! Now I swear, the next one of you primates even touches me... [yells, shoots at the pit Deadite, then shoots again]"

-- Ash, Army of Darkness

YES!! Now all I need is a chainsaw ... :)
User avatar
ilmarinen
Posts: 762
Joined: 21 Mar 2019, 22:32

Re: Gun rules

Post by ilmarinen » 12 Sep 2019, 11:42

uriel wrote:
12 Sep 2019, 03:47
ilmarinen wrote:
10 Sep 2019, 12:30
... Firearms are treated more like magic items—things of wonder and mystery—rather than like things that are mass-produced. Few know the strange secrets of firearm creation.
"All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up! See this? This... is my boomstick! - [continuing nonchalantly] - It's a twelve-gauge, double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt-blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right... shop smart: shop S-Mart... Ya got that?! Now I swear, the next one of you primates even touches me... [yells, shoots at the pit Deadite, then shoots again]"

-- Ash, Army of Darkness

YES!! Now all I need is a chainsaw ... :)
Double barreled stuff considered too advanced for this stage of gun development.
Have you checked prices?.. $110 buks?.. How about 1500 gold? No, you can buy a small hamlet for the price of a pistol...
diego
Posts: 13
Joined: 21 Mar 2019, 23:37

Re: Global changelog

Post by diego » 06 Nov 2019, 19:50

Nice
User avatar
yves
Posts: 17
Joined: 27 Mar 2019, 00:21

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by yves » 18 Dec 2019, 21:48

As some of you have noticed alter self accepts race as argument from now on.
It is now meshanically possible to change alter self profile name, too, but not without an imm. If someone has has ideas on how to implement this the way it won't lead to abuse (infinite alter self form had been deemed as an abuse behind the scenes), please say...
We could have a max limit of profiles based on spellcraft for alter self and disguise for when the disguise skill is implemented.
darash
Posts: 1
Joined: 16 Dec 2019, 10:46

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by darash » 09 Jan 2020, 20:45

About the changes to vamp/undead vulnerabilities/resistances to percentages: will the same be done to werewolves?
50 silver vulnerability is crazy, assuming it means they take 50 extra damage per weapon hit if the attacker is wielding a silver weapon.
diego
Posts: 13
Joined: 21 Mar 2019, 23:37

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by diego » 09 Jan 2020, 20:53

-50% should me you take 1.5x's the damage. So the attacked would do 200 normally, one with -50% would feel 300..I think
User avatar
beshaba
Posts: 25
Joined: 28 Jul 2019, 05:34

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by beshaba » 09 Jan 2020, 21:02

Right now it's just a static 50, so it's an added 50 damage with any attack that is silver
User avatar
fluffy
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 04:58
Location: Yeehaw Country
Contact:

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by fluffy » 17 Jan 2020, 01:48

ilmarinen wrote:
16 Jan 2020, 20:22
waffles have been added to the game
Best update.
User avatar
fluffy
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 04:58
Location: Yeehaw Country
Contact:

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by fluffy » 17 Jan 2020, 01:48

Now we just need kittens.
User avatar
nienne
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Apr 2019, 00:46
Location: Straya

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by nienne » 03 Mar 2020, 11:51

fighter class featmap remap happened

Everything more or less in accordance with pfsrds.
Capstone mastery feats were moved to capstone levels to punish LA races.
These very awesome, better than my smaller changes :) Precursor change to focus/spec was cat's good idea anyway (ahem).

Any reason armor training does not scale the way weapon does? A bit concerned by L3 fighter being able to do backflips in fullplate... seems very exploitable for 10-fighter multi-classing when dex is already our heaviest multi-stat. In PF it does already for this reason. Similar scale to weapon training would allow full dex bonus in full-plate by fourth fighter bracket, which seems fairly good scale. Happy to do the coding if so :)

A more general query, is there a reason we are now punishing LA characters? Used to be the opposite that at least we granted them similar overall class access, just less class level perks ("empty levels" so to speak). Most things in game are not designed this way, so we should probably change a lot of other classes if this is the new approach. That said, most short of the shades/drow/devas are not so crazy already, and our LA system is already harsher than tabletop (works more like monster levels). If we are going to be more harsh on LA characters, perhaps we need to think about changing them over to real LA settings?
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by uriel » 04 Mar 2020, 04:39

nienne wrote:
03 Mar 2020, 11:51
A more general query, is there a reason we are now punishing LA characters?
The LA races are way overpowered. Shades and Devas are crazy. Teleport spells, invisibility, 10 MR and fast regeneration at level 1? Insane. +2 cha and +2 con with no penalties? Insane. That's like +4 stats and and at least 2 free feats (regeneration and resistance).

The reason to punish LA races is to make humans worth playing. If you want max level and pinnacle abilities, play a human. If you like the convenience of cool features at L1, play a shade.
User avatar
nienne
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Apr 2019, 00:46
Location: Straya

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by nienne » 05 Mar 2020, 23:55

As I pointed out, aside from shade/deva/drow... :)
User avatar
fluffy
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 04:58
Location: Yeehaw Country
Contact:

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by fluffy » 06 Mar 2020, 01:20

If you want to make humans more playable, make them cooler. Otherwise, punishing LA races even more than the LA system already does just makes elves look better. Humans are, to many people, boring.

I think the answer is not only making humans better, but giving them more interesting lore. Or lore, period. Do they even have any? It doesn't mean adding magic, necessarily, or making them human. But making them more interesting for both stat and lore considerations.

As for my take on LA races, my ogre-mage is struggling to advance, as her class level being lower than the character level - and character level what the world reacts to, puts her at a disadvantage.Even with fly and her ice spell that means she has to play solo (and dies if she plays solo). Grinding at class level is insufficient xp, and class level is deadly.

This is not a complaint, really. Though I wish there were weaker, non-LA versions of monster races since I choose them for RP and class choices, my point being that, besides for the races that needs a nerf, the other LA races are punished enough. I might end up switching to another character with the same concept because of how they are as is.
User avatar
chernobog
Posts: 18
Joined: 20 Jan 2020, 03:23

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by chernobog » 06 Mar 2020, 20:37

I don't see it as punishment, it's balance. Those lost levels for LA translate into stat and skill bonuses that give a greater bonus than can be gleaned from non-LA levels. The abilities like innate spells further increase the value, since it allows for covering the shortfalls of some classes without having to multiclass. Plus innate spells require no preparation and don't run out of uses.
User avatar
fluffy
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 04:58
Location: Yeehaw Country
Contact:

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by fluffy » 07 Mar 2020, 01:32

Preventing them from getting some class features is punishment, because it's a bit over the top.
"Capstone mastery feats were moved to capstone levels to punish LA races."
The balance that had already existed seemed fine. People didn't play that many LA races anyways, besides the ones that need a bat.
Just nerf what needs nerfing, not a blanket nerf.
User avatar
nienne
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Apr 2019, 00:46
Location: Straya

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by nienne » 07 Mar 2020, 02:37

fluffy wrote:
07 Mar 2020, 01:32
The balance that had already existed seemed fine. People didn't play that many LA races anyways, besides the ones that need a bat.
Just nerf what needs nerfing, not a blanket nerf.
This is how to do good balance. Most LA races are played for preference (or in a few cases, very niche combos with certain classes). If there's a very specific set of overplayed LA races because they're super powerful (*cough*shade/deva*cough*), the solution is to fix those races, not to blanket hammer everyone. It ends up balancing the super powered ones only with certain class combos, while still allowing free run with other classes without capstones, and punishing the non-souped LA races.
User avatar
ilmarinen
Posts: 762
Joined: 21 Mar 2019, 22:32

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by ilmarinen » 09 Mar 2020, 01:12

uriel wrote:
09 Mar 2020, 00:42
ilmarinen wrote:
02 Mar 2020, 09:21
uriel wrote:
02 Mar 2020, 05:49
[...]
The chance had been reversed.

Code: Select all

xp = 1,000,000 + (level-9)*(level-10)*100,000 + (level-8)*(level-9)*(level-10)*2000 
Weird it fits on Newton's interpolation that well...
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by uriel » 09 Mar 2020, 16:59

Well so I did hear today there was an unintended side effect of the table change. It may look like you need a crap load more XP to next level.

I will give an example of Jysibill. She had 22M xp and was L26 on the old table. On the new table she only had enough xp for L22. So for her to get from her current L26 to L27 would require 20M xp, which looks very steep. The good news is that to get from L27 to L28 would only cost about 5M xp.

Is this okay? There are some benefits to the new table. There was a problem with the old table that caused L11 monsters to give more xp than L20 monsters, and L21 monsters to give more xp than L30 monsters. So that bug got fixed but the scale is a little bit steeper. L50 now costs 302 million xp, up from 290 million xp.

But if this causes heartburn, totally happy to revert. happiness >> charts :P And Mewcat is my favorite Feline Overlord and I want to keep him happy too :) Please hollar :)
User avatar
chernobog
Posts: 18
Joined: 20 Jan 2020, 03:23

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by chernobog » 09 Mar 2020, 17:08

Did this change lower the xp on level 11 mobs or increase the xp on level 20 mobs? If the xp gain isn't drastically changed, it feels like you're just penalizing the players who have a limited time to play by increasing grinding time. Also... Personally, I'd really like a discussion before huge changes like this happen, so all views can be considered... but maybe that's just me
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by uriel » 09 Mar 2020, 17:18

Hey Chernobog, this should not increase grinding time. You still need the same number of monsters to kill to gain a level.

That's a feature of the XP system implemented by Ares. The XP for each kill is automatically scaled,

Code: Select all

0.6*((EXP_NEEDED(Level+1) - EXP_NEEDED(Level)))/(level *13) 
So the number of same level normal monsters you have to kill to gain a level is still (Level * 13)/0.6.

So to get to L40, you would need to kill 867 normal L40 monsters. For L50, you would need to kill 1083 normal L50 monsters. etc.

All the change did is move the rungs of the ladder, so that each rung is a little bit farther than the last. And this makes it so that stronger monsters give more XP than weaker monsters.

Lets give a practical example.

On the old scale, to go from L11 to L12 requires 1 million XP, (1M -> 2M).
Likewise to go from L19 to L20 requires 1 million XP, (9M -> 10M).
So the XP you get from a L11 monster is then 0.6*1M/143 = 4196
and the XP you get from a L20 monster is then 0.6*1M/260 = 2307.

On the new scale, to go from L11 to L12 requires 624,000 XP, (1,024,000- > 1,648,000).
Likewise to go from L19 to L20 requires 2,660,000 XP, (11,980,000 -> 14,640,000)
So the XP you get from a L11 monster is then 0.6*624,000/143 = 2618 xp.
and the XP you get from a L20 monster is then 0.6*2,660,000/260 = 6138 xp.

I would argue the new scale makes more sense... But 100% can roll this back if people are not happy! happiness is the goal here :)
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by uriel » 09 Mar 2020, 19:37

Here's the recommended table. It is the same exact 290 million XP to achieve L50 on both charts.

Notice on the old table L11-L20 are on fixed intervals of 1M? There are other examples of that. This causes the bug on monster XP.

Notice how on the new table, the XP required to next level always increases. That fixes the bug.

Code: Select all

     LEVEL     OLD TABLE  XP to NEXT   NEW TABLE  XP to NEXT
           1           1        1999           1        1999
           2        2000        2000        2000        2000
           3        4000        4000        4000        4000
           4        8000        8000        8000        8000
           5       16000       16000       16000       16000
           6       32000       32000       32000       32000
           7       64000       64000       64000       64000
           8      128000      128000      128000      128000
           9      256000      256000      256000      256000
          10      512000      488000      512000      512000
          11     1000000     1000000     1024000      554544
          12     2000000     1000000     1578544      643678
          13     3000000     1000000     2222222      881226
          14     4000000     1000000     3103448     1130268
          15     5000000     1000000     4233716     1390805
          16     6000000     1000000     5624521     1662835
          17     7000000     1000000     7287356     1946360
          18     8000000     1000000     9233716     2241380
          19     9000000     1000000    11475096     2547892
          20    10000000     2000000    14022988     2865900
          21    12000000     2000000    16888888     3195402
          22    14000000     2000000    20084290     3536400
          23    16000000     2000000    23620690     3888888
          24    18000000     2000000    27509578     4252874
          25    20000000     2000000    31762452     4628352
          26    22000000     2000000    36390804     5015324
          27    24000000     2000000    41406128     5413796
          28    26000000     2000000    46819924     5823752
          29    28000000     2000000    52643676     6245212
          30    30000000     5000000    58888888     6678160
          31    35000000     5000000    65567048     7122608
          32    40000000     5000000    72689656     7578544
          33    45000000     5000000    80268200     8045976
          34    50000000     5000000    88314176     8524904
          35    55000000     5000000    96839080     9015328
          36    60000000    10000000   105854408     9517240
          37    70000000    10000000   115371648    10030648
          38    80000000    10000000   125402296    10555560
          39    90000000    10000000   135957856    11091952
          40   100000000    10000000   147049808    11639840
          41   110000000    20000000   158689648    12199232
          42   130000000    10000000   170888880    12770128
          43   140000000    25000000   183659008    13352480
          44   165000000    15000000   197011488    13946368
          45   180000000    15000000   210957856    14551712
          46   195000000    35000000   225509568    15168592
          47   230000000    20000000   240678160    15796928
          48   250000000    20000000   256475088    16436784
          49   270000000    20000000   272911872    17088128
          50   290000000    20000000   290000000    17750944
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by uriel » 09 Mar 2020, 20:15

And last but not least, here's how much XP you get for killing a monster, with the old table and the new table.

Notice how you get less XP for a L29 monster than you do for a L11 monster on the old table? Crazy right?

Please look at the new table. Killing higher level monsters gives more XP.

Code: Select all

Monster Level   Old Table  New Table
           1          92          92
           2          46          46
           3          61          61
           4          92          92
           5         147         147
           6         246         246
           7         421         421
           8         738         738
           9        1312        1312
          10        2252        2363
          11        4195        2326
          12        3846        2475
          13        3550        3128
          14        3296        3726
          15        3076        4279
          16        2884        4796
          17        2714        5284
          18        2564        5747
          19        2429        6189
          20        4615        6613
          21        4395        7022
          22        4195        7419
          23        4013        7803
          24        3846        8178
          25        3692        8544
          26        3550        8902
          27        3418        9254
          28        3296        9599
          29        3183        9939
          30        7692       10274
          31        7444       10604
          32        7211       10930
          33        6993       11253
          34        6787       11572
          35        6593       11888
          36       12820       12201
          37       12474       12512
          38       12145       12820
          39       11834       13126
          40       11538       13430
          41       22514       13732
          42       10989       14033
          43       26833       14331
          44       15734       14629
          45       15384       14924
          46       35117       15219
          47       19639       15512
          48       19230       15804
          49       18838       16095
          50       18461       16385
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by uriel » 11 Mar 2020, 03:31

Mewcat,

At your request - you asked me post here a proof that your XP function does not work.

You proposed a fit curve to the original XP table:

Code: Select all

f(x) = (4532.*x**4.-371980.*x**3.+11777200.*x**2.-148178000.*x+638400000.)/15.
Here the function f(x) gives the xp needed for level x.

The XP for a monster kill is given by:

Code: Select all

g(x) = 0.6*(f(x+1)-f(x))/(x*13)
Here the function g(x) gives the xp for killing a "normal" monster of level x.

If you want to run this is gnuplot, here's a script:

Code: Select all

gnuplot> f(x) = (4532.*x**4.-371980.*x**3.+11777200.*x**2.-148178000.*x+638400000.)/15.
gnuplot> g(x) = 0.6*(f(x+1)-f(x))/(x*13)
gnuplot> set xrange[10:30]
gnuplot> plot g(x) w lp
You will see a nice dip in the curve where L22, L23, L24, L25 monsters give less XP than a L17 monster.

Please don't mistake me, it's a nice fit. But it gets a wrong result, just as I told you it would. Fitting a function to data points that don't make sense will give you a function that also doesn't make sense. QED.

Cheers,
Uriel
User avatar
ilmarinen
Posts: 762
Joined: 21 Mar 2019, 22:32

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by ilmarinen » 11 Mar 2020, 09:46

Cheers,
Uriel
monster.c:1470

First thing that has been done, days ago, since your fit returned negative exp for mobs at l10.

QED? Talking about this now is major waste of time, since agrees system was m, and should have been, first thing to go, in solving issues you pointed out at oly after your fix caused more important issues.
uriel
Posts: 54
Joined: 20 Aug 2019, 05:09

Re: Global changelog: discussion

Post by uriel » 12 Mar 2020, 06:16

ilmarinen wrote:
11 Mar 2020, 09:46
monster.c:1470
Your latest change looks OK. The monster XP looks bug free and bug free is good.

It is an absolute scale meaning if you change the XP table at a later date you may also have to change the monster XP again. So this is a move away from Ares relative scaling method -- which was handy but created bugs.
ilmarinen wrote:
11 Mar 2020, 09:46
First thing that has been done, days ago, since your fit returned negative exp for mobs at l10.
I didn't do a fit, I wrote a function from scratch :P And nothing I wrote returned a negative XP - if you can show me that, I'd like to see it. The tables in the messages above are rock solid.
ilmarinen wrote:
11 Mar 2020, 09:46
QED? Talking about this now is major waste of time, since agrees system was m, and should have been, first thing to go, in solving issues you pointed out at oly after your fix caused more important issues.
It's difficult to understand what you are trying to say here.

Regarding the QED - If you ask for a proof, don't complain if you get one :) Now if you can prove it wrong, hats off to you! :) But this one was pretty cut and dried.

I think your edit to monsters.c 1470 should work fine. Close enough!

Cheers,
Uriel
Post Reply