PTR Changelog 2019-02-01: Power Creeps
@davaned I can't seem to catch your point here. How exactly the current implementation of losing a level makes people not able to react defensively in a programmatic way?
Okay, so that does exist, but it isn't in https://screeps.com/ptr/constants.js which makes it super hard to tell what constants exist. I thought that was the actual file the server used and it always had to contain what is used in game.
This is the actual file used by the simulator, not the server. The actual server-side version is in the
ptrbranch on GitHub: https://github.com/screeps/common/blob/ptr/lib/constants.js
That'll definitely make it stronger, but how will that factor into energy required by the power creep?
All energy is taken from the target structure, as it is in the current implementation.
Definitely still need power creep LOOK and FIND constants, or roll them under the CREEP constants.
FIND_*_POWER_CREEPSshould work on the PTR currently, have you checked?
What about the LOOK_*_POWER_CREEPS constants? I could not find them. Also, does it make sense to make one that finds any creep, power or regular? for pathfinding etc i would need to find both kinds anyways.
MY/HOSTILE) is on the PTR. Private server is not updated yet.
A constant for both types makes little sense since they have different prototypes. It's better to find both separately and just concatenate arrays then.
@artch typing LOOK_POWER_CREEPS in the console gives me an "is not defined" error message in return when on the ptr (through the steam client)
Orlet last edited by
I personally feel the power creep is too large, I think it should be the same size or only slightly larger than a regular creep. I get that you want to differentiate it from regular creeps but the way it overlaps other objects looks funny.
I agree. We've touched up on this on slack with o4, he said PowerCreeps are intentionally larger than normal so normal ones would cower in fear and run away just at the sight of it.
What we suggested is shrinking normal creeps and power creeps proportionally, and maybe also shrinking the Storage too, because that thing is huge.
Davaned last edited by Davaned
@artch Significant, permanent loss based on a judgement call on what game state in 24 hours will be? Definitely falls under the difficult to code region imo. If PC are intended as a separate way of playing the game from a GCL focused player, switching a major PC from eco to defense represents a huge loss of your empire for the duration, and then another level loss again when you swap back. 2 level loss and 48 hours of missing a chunk of the engine that is driving your PC based empire is a harsh tradeoff to wrap in code.
That's part of why I suggested having power creep templates and make swapping back to your old heroes be easier. Otherwise you pay a double price.
typing LOOK_POWER_CREEPS in the console gives me an "is not defined" error message in return when on the ptr (through the steam client)
Oops, indeed, sorry for that. Fixed.
@davaned It's rather indirect and obscure opportunity cost. If a player is not relying on PCs so much, he wouldn't consider this a loss at all. Cost should be direct, straightforward and obvious so that everybody understands clearly that reprofiling is not free.
Davaned last edited by Davaned
@artch Ok, in the end of the day if you are set on punishing PC change in a clear permanent way it does do the trick. However the tokens are going to essentially render it non-existent unless players want to swap multiple times a week. If you really are set ensuring permanent penalty for changing is the 24 hour wait necessary? I feel like it goes against your previous comment.
No delay-based mechanics would solve this unfair feeling. We either have to allow everybody to switch instantly, or disallow everybody to switch at all (or restrict it).
I'm personally in favor of a delay since I feel it makes offense easier. However, I think that as from a game mechanics standpoint, having something based on RL time and not ticks is confusing as you cannot cleanly code for it and varies from shard to shard and day to day. I understand you did this because they are account resources, but the problem still remains that the game is experienced within game time. If you keep it, personally it seems more logical that the PC would be absorbed (die) at the beginning of the time period and at the end of it the levels are unlocked, rather than it suddenly poofing from somewhere on the map.
deft-code last edited by
LOOK_POWER_CREEPSis missing from PTR (again?). I'm pretty sure
Room.lookAtis referencing it, but the spatial register is missing.
@artch seems no powerbanks are spawning on the ptr? Its no dealbreaker, but processing power is one of my energy sinks, without it my storages are overflowing, especially with the regen sources power. If we could have it enabled it would be appreciated.
However the tokens are going to essentially render it non-existent unless players want to swap multiple times a week.
Experimentation periods cannot be enabled from the API, so players can't include them into their automatic reaction algorithms. And they are finite and should be used carefully. It's unlikely that somebody will spend two experimentation periods just for some random war.
Also, I'd like to note that although we plan to replenish them in the future, but not necessarily up to 30 again, it might be any arbitrary increment depending on how big the game change is. It's better not to spend them under an impression that the next replenishment will make it 30 again.
If you really are set ensuring permanent penalty for changing is the 24 hour wait necessary?
The 24 hours wait is needed just to provide enough time to change your mind, since it's a permanent account loss and cannot be undone. Or imagine that someone with access to your computer just wanted to annoy you a bit and deleted all your PCs, then created them again and deleted again until you have GPL 0. With 24 hours delay, you have time to react and cancel.
I seem to have an issue where i apply the PWR_REGEN_MINERAL to a "X" mineral on PTR server where the function returns "0", but the power is not applied. I only have one "X" mineral, in other rooms it seems to work fine (on other minerals). I also have had two operators in the same room, both trying to apply the power at the same time, which may have caused the issue? Id of the mineral is "598342f3641acf0573578343"
@deft-code Works for me:
> Game.rooms.E13N15.lookForAt(LOOK_POWER_CREEPS, 18,23) < [powerCreep PC1]
How do you reproduce it?
@geir1983 This mineral deposit is on cooldown, so the power doesn't work.
usePowerdoesn't check semantics of all powers, it simply returns
OKin such cases, and the check is done server side.
Geir1983 last edited by Geir1983
hmm, ok applying to minerals on cooldowns was working earlier this week, i assumed that was the correct behavior.
Edit: its also possible to apply to minerals in unowned rooms currently.
its also possible to apply to minerals in unowned rooms currently.
Do you mean in rooms without controllers? That's the intended behavior.
OPERATE_EXTENSIONbehavior is changed:
Instantly fills 20%/40%/60%/80%/100% of all extensions in the room using energy in the target structure (container, storage, or terminal). Cooldown 50 ticks. Range 3 squares. Consumes 2 ops resource units.
@artch rooms with controllers, but no owner or built extractor. Was not sure if its intended.
Btw; the regen_source works while the source has active cooldown, maybe it should be clarified that the regen_mineral power only works while the mineral is not on cooldown. The description of the powers are pretty much identical but dont indicate this difference in behavior.