3. Changelog 2017-05-11

Changelog 2017-05-11

  • Dev Team

    http://blog.screeps.com/2017/05/changelog-2017-05-11/


  •  

    CORRECTION - OCS is fine. I was looking at the wrong combat class.


  • Zero warning on a change that breaks AIs? If you're going to disable a feature AIs are relying on for combat, you should give players enough time to make changes to their code and fix it. Someone's probably going to lose a war over this.


  • I've noticed that sometimes a terminal transaction returns OK but doesn't actually do anything.  Now, with the terminal cooldown, it can sometimes trigger that cooldown even though the terminal does nothing.  This really hurts, hopefully this can be fixed?


  • So, what was the change to UO, UHO2, and XUHO2?  The notes say that their boost effects were changed according to the documentation, but the documentation just says 200%, 400%, and 600% extra work effectiveness like it's always been.


  • @Crusher48 - isn't that part of the game tho? In real life security fixes require fast turnaround all the time.

  • Culture

    @roncli: Since the original patch a few months ago the values have been higher than docs state, they fixed that in this patch


  • @ags131 Not sure what you mean. Values are not involved in what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a transaction return OK, the cooldown get triggered, but because maybe someone else got to the order before me I don't really make the transaction. To be fair, I'm not looking for these, so I don't really know how often it happens, but I definitely saw it happen shortly after this patch was released. It might be fine now?


  • Nope, still happening, caught one within the last 20 minutes.

    In my log, I have:

    5/16/2017 12:02:27 pm - 19213498 - "E37N14 O x1520 @ 0.1 completed, buy 28380 remaining on 591b48b46b2b5c8359115eef"
    5/16/2017 12:01:45 pm - 19213488 - "E37N14 O x1520 @ 0.1 completed, buy 28380 remaining on 591b48b46b2b5c8359115eef"

    This means that at tick 19213488 and 19213498 both, I got a return of "OK" for trying to do a deal on this.  Since the attempts are 10 ticks apart, I can safely assume that the cooldown was initiated.  When the cooldown is NOT initiated, the attempts are at most 2 ticks apart, depending on my current CPU/bucket situation.

    However, when I view my market history:

    5/16/17 12:07 PM 19213567
    Resources sold via market order
     
    		 +68.00 9,619.18
    5/16/17 12:02 PM 19213498
    Resources sold via market order
     
    		 +152.00 9,551.18
    5/16/17 11:59 AM 19213455
    Resources sold via market order
     
    		 +60.00 9,399.18

    You can see here that only the 19213498 attempt went through successfully.  So why did the 19213488 attempt trigger the cooldown?  I don't think it should if the order does not actually go through.

  • Culture

    Sorry, looked at the wrong name, I was replying to @PCakeCysote's post on the boost percentages


  • @roncli if i had to guess this is probably because market transactions are intents, and just like 2 creeps trying to move to the same spot, if more than one player (or the same player from 2 different terminals) tries to buy something in a deal, the deal can succeed on call (the game has verified that there are no outstanding major issues with your deal (i.e. you don't have enough credits)) but fail when the intent is processed.


  • Except it doesn't happen all the time.  The behavior is very inconsistent.  More often than not it will fail on transferring one tick despite the OK, and then try again next tick.