To be honest, I don't see the advantage of the current operate extensions over the previous iteration. The previous iteration provided the ability to load up extra resources into extensions to save on the amount of extensions each hauler needed to visit, save up resources for multiple consecutive creep spawns, and even allow smaller rooms to deploy stronger creeps by buffing up their extensions to a higher level. The current operate extensions does fill extensions faster and can potentially replace one dedicated hauler creep, but since the power creep has carry capacity anyways, it can already fill extensions in a room quite quickly just using its own carry capacity (filling about 100 energy per tick to RCL8 extensions just through withdraw and transfer commands). Increasing extension capacity provides more tactical options than just merely filling extensions.

Let's move this discussion to the follow-up thread.

The discussion is moved here.

Temporary Shards/Monthly Challenges where players compete (or cooperate against a shared challenge) for prestige/practice.

 

ooh, and maybe allow us to get early access to a new shard before it opens up if we want to have to jump through the temporary shard.

@jbyoshi said in Screeps Discord?:

Why not set up a Discord/Slack bridge? I'm part of a project that started on IRC and then later added an "unofficial official" Discord server. To prevent fragmentation, we then added a chat bot to link them. Screeps could do something similar. This would give us the benefits of both Discord and Slack, whichever you prefer to use.

I did something like that for a eve alliance some time ago, and it failed because of rate limits. I don't remember which side was the problem, screeps or discord, or if they changed the limits.

As announced before, the /api/auth/signin endpoint now uses Google Invisible reCAPTCHA. If you haven't changed your auth flow to tokens yet, please do this ASAP.

Update:

Bugfixes. WebGL renderer is now turned on by default. New display options dialog:

This mechanic does definitely seem interesting, but I would be much more open to it if there was a smaller cooldown.

As is, as Steeler said, it very heavily penalizes spread out empires, and practically makes portal-expansion completely pointless.

As of now, my furthest two rooms are have a linear room distance of 104, and all of my rooms are either claimed by moving a large distance, or by moving through a portal. I felt this was a good strategy at the time, both because it allowed for more remote mining, and so that it was harder to "attack" my empire.

If this change goes through as is, it will leave players like me at a huge disadvantage compared to the ones who just chose to "dominate" an contiguous block of rooms.

Just one more point I would like to make, is the technical burden for remote mining.  As a new player, I still haven't dealt with remote mining, since it would take a significant time to get code that would result in a profitable operation.  Right now, I am more focused on immediate issues inside my own rooms.

If you make is such that we need this power creep to boost a source, I fear that will just increase the burden of remote mining for newer players, in terms of coding (and cpu).  

I 100% agree that higher player remote mining operations are too profitable right now, but on the flip side, if you reduce those profits, you will make it such that newer players will almost never remote mine.  I would like to see a balance that limits higher players, without harming newer players.

I found Dissi's suggestion of "intermediate rooms" very interesting.

What about yellow/orange sectors for intermediate players. While there wouldn't be walls blocking entry, it would have some limitations to help players get established. For example - no boosted creeps (any creeps entering the zone lose their boosts), and no nukes.

I could also support Tedivm's idea of signing controllers with boosts to prevent noob zones from opening.

Dewey

This seems like an idea that would be fun to program for the devs, but not very usable in practice. If this is added to your todo list, I hope it will be with the lowest priority possible, there are so many other things that would be better to spend your time on. Just my opinion.

Let's move this discussion to the new thread.

@tedivm If you have an active subscription, you need to order the same subscription and thus manually renew it using the discounted price. The order page UI has been changed to indicate this.

If you want to cancel your subscription without refund in order to switch to another plan, please contact us.

Text is particularly blurry (room.visual.text) at certain zoom levels that were otherwise readable in the old renderer. Unsure if the new lighting is a factor or not, I don't recall text readability issues previously.

Overall runs great. Would really like a checkbox to turn off lighting effects.

The biggest problem imo, is the inconsistent REACTION_TIMES. It would be one thing to have T2 take longer than T1, T3 longer than T2, but to give different times for different reactions makes optimizing and rewriting lab logic overly complicated as some T3 boosts are just clearly not worth the time involved anymore, while others still may be.

So not I need logic that says go ahead and produce XLHO2 as normal, but not XZH2O because it's not worth the time, so stop the chain at ZH2O. Don't bother with XGH2O anymore, which was previously the #1 priority, because you can't possibly produce it fast enough to keep upgraders boosted, so better GCL strategy is now to claim, upgrade, unclaim, repeat until that gets nerfed.

Basically you can't really create lab logic that applies to all reactions equally anymore because reaction times are now unequal.

I'm not sure this makes T1/T2 more viable, since T3 is still the optimal effect per creep / tick / cpu cost which are important factors. Really it just makes some T3's unviable by creating an artificial limitation that further slows down the game and reduces the reward for time / effort invested.

Just my experience with it so far. It certainly causes a need for rethinking various strategies, and that probably appeals to the Max GCL, liable to get bored / stagnant crowd. But I'm not sure complicating lab systems while reducing the reward will inspire new players or even mid-level players much.

I quite like the proposed equation. ~0,5 cost @ 25 range is a really sweet point to me,

As a random thought, what effect would making different tiers of boost / resource have different transfer costs be? Atm the t1 boosts, do not see much trading at all, even for new players. If they were to have lower transfer fees, or a wider transfer range, than t3 boosts, it may make them more palatable?

On the whole I really like the idea of regional markets, provided that each region has equal maturity (a regional market of only new players would sort of suck).

@artch if you launched it next week and put it in production three weeks later (for a total of about four weeks) it should be fine. People won't be getting back from the burn until September 5th, so they won't see this announcement until after that.

@artch I also, don't like the idea of a paid shard, it would split the community too much imo.

Looks like in the current beta RoomVisuals are not working for me...

After some debate let me make a statement to leave no room for ambiguity:
According to http://docs.screeps.com/tos.html

Under LIMITATIONS

Register more than one account to play the Game.

So a maximum of 1 account per player.

I’ve discussed this matter with Artem and this is the final decision