@gankdalf That's a bug, spawning should stop when a nuke lands, we'll check that.

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:

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.

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.

I would disagree with shedletsky's opinion that HEAL should be cheaper and that recycling should be removed. HEAL is already very powerful and recycling provides interesting strategies. However, I do think that it would be worth considering buffing CARRY boosts. Currently the manufacturing cost is the same as ATTACK / RANGED_ATTACK / HEAL boosts, but I don't think that 4x carry capacity provides nearly the same utility that 4x damage/healing does (ignoring the fact that the healing further synergizes with XGHO2, which I personally think is a bit overpowered). For example, assuming 100% lab efficiency and using T3 boosts, if you want to move a full storage worth of resources from 3 rooms away using 40 move / 10 carry creeps, it will take you 25 creeps and 3.56 million lab ticks for the entire operation. The same amount of lab ticks could boost 20 creeps (5 full 2x2 squads) with 10 tough / 40 (attack/ranged/heal) / 10 move bodies, which, in the hands of the right players, is more than sufficient to take out most rooms. I would argue that taking out a room is worth far more than faster and slightly cheaper resource transport. One final thing I would add is that I think a big factor that limits the usefulness of CARRY boosts is that containers are limited to 2000 capacity, which is only slightly higher than the max unboosted creep carry capacity. I think it is worth considering adding an EXTEND_CONTAINER power to the operator power creep, which would increase the capacity of a container from 2000 to 8000 (max boosted carry capacity) for X ticks. (This would really need to be useable in outpost rooms to be useful, however, so I'm not sure how that would work with enabling/disabling powers in a room.) Alternately, simply increasing container capacity altogether could make this boost more useful on a day-to-day basis, and I don't forsee any balance problems with this change.

Well yeah that's true your folks is rather straight forward... But in a somewhat refreshing kind of way, but since it isn't conveyed in text so just be careful in the future. I rather deal with your kind than the France culture, from a German view point they never shut up... They expect to be interrupted that is part of how they communicate, interrupting in German is viewed very rude. So if you have a french date interrupt her/him a few times otherwise it her/he could interpret it as "not interested"

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

Let's move this discussion to the new thread.

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.

That brings me to an idea, try to build up artificial garbage over some ticks and then delete it. It would be interesting to see if that has any effect.

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).