Navigation

    forum

    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    1. Home
    2. Popular
    • All categories

    • Power Creeps update
      News & Announcements • • artch

      167
      0
      Votes
      167
      Posts
      443490
      Views

      @gankdalf That's a bug, spawning should stop when a nuke lands, we'll check that.
    • PTR Changelog 2019-02-01: Power Creeps
      News & Announcements • • artch

      151
      0
      Votes
      151
      Posts
      520091
      Views

      @geir1983 we were able to reproduce and fix the issue, thank you for the report!
    • Game.cpu.generatePixel change
      News & Announcements • • artch

      126
      0
      Votes
      126
      Posts
      408746
      Views

      @artch could we please update the documentation to reflect this change? I'm not sure how somebody would know about this other than finding this article or perhaps reading screeps source code. https://docs.screeps.com/api/#Game.cpu.generatePixel [edit] Sorry, I didn't read the full thread but it sounds like intents are no longer cancelled. Docs are up to date then. Thx.
    • PTR Changelog 2016-09-29
      News & Announcements • • artch

      109
      0
      Votes
      109
      Posts
      240623
      Views

      Let's move this discussion to the follow-up thread.
    • PTR Changelog 2017-07-20: world shards
      News & Announcements • • artch

      107
      0
      Votes
      107
      Posts
      345126
      Views

      The discussion is moved here.
    • Optimizations roadmap
      News & Announcements • • artch

      92
      0
      Votes
      92
      Posts
      307185
      Views

      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.
    • Screeps Discord?
      General Discussion • • Gankdalf

      91
      0
      Votes
      91
      Posts
      306342
      Views

      @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.
    • Auth Tokens
      News & Announcements • • artch

      87
      0
      Votes
      87
      Posts
      245029
      Views

      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.
    • New improved WebGL renderer
      News & Announcements • • artch

      83
      1
      Votes
      83
      Posts
      316738
      Views

      Update: Bugfixes. WebGL renderer is now turned on by default. New display options dialog:
    • Draft: factories and commodities (new crafting/trading mechanic)
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      82
      0
      Votes
      82
      Posts
      222088
      Views

      Maybe market system changes should be discussed in a separate threat. I'm also not a friend of order fees and I'm more a friend of transaction fees, but it would be too offtopic to deepen this topic now. The current changes show what we'll expect but there is still something missing: The regional commodities need different resources, so their production cost varies a lot between different regions. What will be the market prices for these commodities? How much ops will OPERATE_FACTORY need for which effect duration? ( I know proposed is 100 ops for 1000 ticks, but they are "still considering other timings too" )
    • Discussion: long-range logistics revamp
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      81
      0
      Votes
      81
      Posts
      143251
      Views

      I agree that terminals throughput and reach make them very powerful, and that potentially overshadows other logistic options in the game (creep transporters) or potential new designs such as Warp Containers. If the key design objective here is to avoid short interrupts of terminal disruption being catastrophic for attackers, what about the following change to PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL which makes sieged terminals more expensive to use while reducing the catastrophic effect of the effect dropping: PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL no longer blocks withdrawals, but now imposes a loss at the time of withdrawal: 30%/50%/60%/70%/80% depending on the level of the power. E.g. level 1 disrupt means that I try and withdraw 1000 energy, 1000 energy is removed from the terminal, but 700 energy is added to my creep. PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL now uses a new expiry mechanic: level reduction. Instead of the effect dissipating after X ticks, the effect reduces a level and the cooldown is reset back to X ticks. The effect only expires when the level would reach 0. This means the effect is less binary, and fades out over time. So if you apply level 5 power, after X ticks it drops to level 4, then after another X ticks it drops to level 3 and so in. The effect can be reapplied by the attacker at a higher level, without waiting for it to tick all the way down to level 0. the cooldown of PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL is increased to 100 ticks, and the ops cost adjusted accordingly. Making the effect longer is not a big problem as the effect is no longer a complete lockout of the terminal, but leaves a defender the option to spend their way through the effect... until they run out of money. PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL affects the contents of a ruin formed from the terminal (destroying the terminal and rebuilding thus remains an option for the defender, but potentially an expensive one). The effect of these three changes is: level 5 disrupt terminal is a lot stronger than level 1, but level 1 is still useful. Currently I think there's no reason to go beyond level 1. defender now has a choice to make - do I withdraw these Tier3 boosts now knowing that I'm paying a fortune to boost this creep, do I wait and hope that the level will drop off in the future, or do I not boost this creep in this base? The current power design leaves the defender has no choice but to wait and hope. Allowing the defender a choice makes the situation more interesting for the defender to reason about, and the optimal choice may be different for different players, bots, situations. if the attacker's disruption is interrupted, there is a much larger grace period before it becomes catastrophic for the attacker. Instead of the effect dropping off after 10 ticks, the effect continues for hundreds of ticks, albeit with decreasing power. The overall effect is to make disrupt terminal more flexible and powerful for the attacker (although this is dependent on the exact loss percentages). The attacker also is able to trade off the cost in ops vs the withdrawal cost for the defender. Perhaps the economic decision for the attacker is to apply level 5 disrupt terminal, and wait for it to drop to level 3 disrupt terminal before reapplying level 5 again. The decision-making for the attacker is slightly more interesting than reapplying on expiry. The economic balance between attacking and defending is tilted away from the defender. It's still possible to flood resources into a sieged base from elsewhere, however it becomes much more expensive for the defender to make use of those resources. PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL becomes not just "wreck their defence", but "wreck their economy and their defence". Perfect application of the existing power would be stronger at wrecking their defence than this proposal, but an imperfect application neither wrecks their defence nor their economy. This proposal means that even a failed attack could be costly for the defender (potentially 5x as costly as at present). What's good about this proposal? It narrowly focuses on the specific issue with PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL, and doesn't change other parts of the game. More decisions for attackers and defenders to make. Puts a greater distance between PWR_DISRUPT_SPAWN and PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL. Currently, both interfere with base defence by blocking a crucial structure, aiming to make spawning defender creeps impossible. With this change, the choice is between blocking defenders spawning, and making defenders very expensive. The outcome is no longer identical (assuming perfect attacker logic). What's bad about this proposal? It narrowly focuses on the specific issue with PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL, and doesn't address the strength of terminals in general (but maybe that's ok). Introduces a new effect expiry mechanic that doesn't exist on other effects which might make the behaviour harder to understand. doesn't tie in with the mineral compression mechanic (unlike the terminal rate limit under discussion)
    • PTR Changelog 2016-09-19
      News & Announcements • • artch

      78
      0
      Votes
      78
      Posts
      198631
      Views

      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.
    • [GCL] GCL - Circumventing the "cap" is ridiculously easy
      General Discussion • • Dissi

      78
      0
      Votes
      78
      Posts
      243231
      Views

      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.
    • [Discussion] Uniformity of the world
      General Discussion • • Davaned

      70
      0
      Votes
      70
      Posts
      130213
      Views

      @deft-code Oh man don't make this TF2 XD That said, it could be great to have some side revenue generating options for screeps. Things like reskins or custom badges could bring in some extra cash without increasing server load.
    • PTR Changelog 2018-08-28
      News & Announcements • • artch

      69
      0
      Votes
      69
      Posts
      188018
      Views

      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.
    • Room signs failing to prevent novice zones from appearing
      Technical Issues and Bugs • • anisoptera

      66
      0
      Votes
      66
      Posts
      181671
      Views

      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
    • PTR Changelog 2016-09-09
      News & Announcements • • artch

      64
      0
      Votes
      64
      Posts
      144119
      Views

      Let's move this discussion to the new thread.
    • Discussion: Contract system
      General Discussion • • artch

      64
      0
      Votes
      64
      Posts
      132912
      Views

      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.