It sounds like you're bashing something you don't understand, while trying to create a competing product that you don't seem to have any progress on in the last 3 months.

Literally nothing in your comment there makes sense. The whole point of the game is that your bot plays even if you don't have the game open.

What is touch abuse? I've never heard of any claim bugs. By deals do you mean market? Market works fine.

IMO @o4kapuk should just delete this whole thread, you're clearly way out of touch. Again, I'm normally one of the first to go after the devs for issues.

Yes

https://screeps.com/forum/topic/3187/migration-from-slack-to-discord

https://twitter.com/ScreepsGame/status/1419919747437764612

www.discord.gg/RjSS5fQuFx

It's an excellent game!

I think with Seasonals, Arena and now Discord the game will grow well.

Were you ever able to find anyone for this? Would be nice to get one last snapshot of slack

Did this ever make it into the game?

Sorry but in my opinion (as someone who often has a lot of opinions on game devs), the devs are actually doing a great job.

Seasonal is really the only path forward for World.

Arena is the future for the game to grow overall.

World & Shards are already in a decent place. Could there be more balance changes? Sure. But adding too much more to them just increases complexity in an already complex game. There are plenty of rooms to start your bot in. Even if you get murdered occasionally, your progress is your code, not your RCL. Even GCL doesn't really matter.

Per discussions in slack:

Portals should start rare/short range, and increase in frequency towards the end. This helps accomplish many of the goals I talked about previously for smaller maps.

Energy gets very abundant at some points. However, "temple" rooms and power creeps - the two ways to increase energy use - aren't very feasible in season due to the time limits lowering their time horizon. Should seasonal see the removal of the 15e/t cap at RCL8? Or incorporate energy into scoring (eg having to process it first like power) to provide a new sink?

A further idea - being able to change a symbol using energy. It would cost X energy and Y ticks in a lab reaction to turn one tick in either direction per the wheel. This would provide an energy sink. This would allow better solo play, while retaining co op as the most efficient path. Good decoder choice would still be important, as the further away on the wheel the symbol is, the more lab time and energy it takes to make compatible. With a good choice of rate cap on a decoder, it may not be feasible to force 5 different symbols into it anyways.

Finally, a lot of us want to see the convoy lifestyle that would arise from no terminals at all. What if symbols couldn't be sent thru terminal? This would increase the value of locality of decoders. I think this would create an interesting counterbalance to the "maximize remote sources" meta of MMO, which was amplified by the "maximize score gathering reach" of season 1. This would mesh well with being able to modify symbols - with a far decoder, do you pay energy to transport, or to modify?

Even prior to the amazing CGP Grey video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOifuHs6eY) hexagonal grids have been known to be a better coordinate system for non-continuous grids.

https://www.redblobgames.com/grids/hexagons/ covers that in depth

Arena has already gone in the right direction eliminating rooms & adding persistent objects, let's complete the trifecta and get hex tiles!

Obviously some debate over how much effort, etc but the long term health of the game will be benefitted tremendously. Squircicle coordinates introduce a lot of 'jank' to the game, and jank limits playerbases.

@Gadjung Read what I wrote. Not GCL 22. 22 symbols. I went on to state that the idea I was putting forward applied to whatever style of alliance secured their symbols - few big players, mix of big/small, etc.

@Bogden If players want a publicly hosted safe zone to learn in, they should go to a novice zone on shard3. That's why it exists. Attempting to create global co op is entirely in contradiction to what makes seasonal interesting - the competition.

@Bazsi1224 I think you'll find this mechanic better for avoiding wipes. Anything that gets added to push that further is going to be artificial and to the detriment of overall gameplay.

I think overall, it's perfectly fair to say that seasonal does not need to explicitly cater to new players.

I do think it would be interesting to have a rolling shard that resets every 3 months. No leaderboards. Relatively large map. No rewards of any sort, but very low access token entry that gives 'subscription' to that shard independent of MMO shards. Gives new players another option of a place to start out & learn. But, this would be totally separate & independent from seasonal, which is on a good track right now.

@gadjung said in Season #2 concept:

@cribbit said in Season #2 concept:

A good economic bot should get you in the top 100. Your combat code should determine top 10.

There's ~140 players in this season with less than 50% having scored.

Yes, and this new seasonal mechanic solves that bottom 50%.

@cribbit said in Season #2 concept:

In a large map, a top-10 player is only able to indirectly compete on the leaderboard by exerting total dominance over their holdings to maximize gains.

That's not true. in large map top10 player needs to cooperate with smaller players to get access to highRCL decoders.

All that matters is # of symbols accessible. Once you reach 22, the benefit of pushing anyone else out will inherently always outweigh the cost of letting them stay, if those are the only options. By introducing a 3rd option - direct combat against the players close to you on the leaderboard - you gain interesting interplay. Only in a small map do you have the 3rd option. This rationale stays the same no matter what the alliance is comprised of.

In small map there is high risk of alliances, created by season1 top10-15 players, that will determine most of ranking.

Hypothetical Example

• 3 teams of 4 top15 players decide to take 6 sectors (2-3 sectors/player for optimal GCL-7/8 room setup), wipe anyone else within and 4-8 rooms around it, split code picking into assigned zones and do not fight with each-other (best in alliance wins, since breaking/fighting within alliance is too risky from ranking perspective for every member)

With big map it should reduce chance of top players clumping together. Example:

• Each of top15 players creates it's own kingdom with some smaller-player vassals as to not have to share code-picking with other top10 players

We are acting like anyone getting wiped, ever, is a bad thing. Wipes happen. This game has PvP. The question is whether those players are able to find some area to exist after being wiped. Even if we disagree on how map size impacts that being able to happen, the seasonal mechanic guarantees that vassal states will exist.

A smaller map is more interesting, period. We agree that a larger map means less fighting between players that are close to each other on the leaderboard. This is a bad thing.

Seasonal does not need to allow bottom 50% players to exist in ignorance of the rest of the server.