it's not about coding, but placing a construction site and doing basic stuff such as spawning a creep or setting memory

Reposting interesting thoughts from slack:

Snowgoose 9:50 PM

I don’t think the top players need to make any deals, if they could kill you they can just take out your towers, or just heal there way to the collector

Snowgoose 9:52 PM

Once your towers are gone they can probably keep a room down with small creeps

Snowgoose 9:56 PM

Perhaps there is a way to tweak it so that if the room owner keeps the collector ‘awake’ then it is twice as efficient, so that barging in is worse than coop

QzarSTB 11:59 PM

Could force-assign players to a random sector to spawn in to remove premade teams

There was also a great discussion about boosting, especially late game. If the game mode promotes alliances, it's easy to imagine a situation where several players cooperate fully until some point, and after that whoever has the highest score gets a full boost from the others. The alliance that does it will win (ok technically their representative will but I'd still call it a win). Actually, the alliance which starts it earliest, should win...

Do I smell cpu steal on shared VMs?

(unless fully automated) Sometimes you need to help your creeps during vacation, away from your computer. Current screeps web interface almost works, the only two major things that don't are:

• clicking on a field with more than one type of object (creep and road, for example) renders a little tooltip but that tooltip is then not clickable (Android, Chromium)
• in the console you can't type anything because every other letter is "eaten" by something (autocomplete I guess?)

Everything else seems to work fine. A minor bug that I spotted is that you can't switch between rooms with the popup buttons that appear in 4 sides of it, because those appear when you hover above them and on mobile there is no hover, but that's minor since you can just click World and pick a room.

@crazydubc post ^ on feature suggestions. Or we can always do a community-driven initiative, purge-the-outskirts style.

Ok, so listen, you seem to be fighting for an apology, not for yourself, but for some other people. The thing is, most if not all of those people said they don't want an apology and your crusade is really annoying to most of us to the point where it does more harm than good. It doesn't look like it's going to turn around any time soon, too.

Please stop.

Generally there are quite a few interesting game modes in other games, we could even imagine a Battle Royale 10x10 shard (an obvious limit of 100 players), GCL limit 1, no corridor rooms. 100 players start, but in the end (in a voice of Christopher Lambert): there can be only one!

This thing could keep restarting, too, people seem to think it's not repetitive, some matchmaking can be added so that you can have a chance to win and the excitement from being one of the last few is quite a thrill.

I think I would buy into almost any coop, but some team-based thing could also work wonders, though that needs to be balanced to prevent noobs becoming energy farms for the big guys.

Any other mode + limit controllers to level X (say, 3 or 4), but have a lot of CPU (or, haha, lower CPU action cost) and low GCL. With no boosts we'll now have massive zerg-like armies instead of T3 phat quad meta.

Bro, please, let it go. Chill. It's enough. You've made your point.

No need to appologize, this is not kidergarden. It's a discussion between adult men aware of a language barrier between them. I believe mutual respect was there most of the way, we all are trying to make things better. Lets use this as an opportinuty to make things better in the future.

This change was meant to be small and non-invasive, but as it turns out it broke some stuff for some people, and, well, if you break a hobby project of another person, they might understandably get frustrated.

I do believe that this project is, whether it was intended or not, more like a "bank" than it was planned to be. Community expects a higher stability level than the developers provide, we can see it quite frequently now and it's becoming a little bit of a consistent pattern. At the same time, I can fully understand that the devs are afraid of a rigid procedure set involved with a highly stable platform as their efforts to grow the game are already sluggish due to very small team and a massive chunk of codebase (which is a different frustration of the community - but that's a story for another day).

The perspective that seems to be missing though is that those two goals are not mutually exclusive - in fact if this is done well, then the development throughput should increase (slightly in the worst case and quite massively in the best case (if crowdsourcing kicks in)). Devs are not experienced in this area, it seems, so discussing it and showing perspectives to each other seems to be the way to go. I was upset personally when the thread was locked, but once I realized the lock was temporary, it actually made a lot of sense. And it worked. I was wrong.