I'd rather deal with spammers than having to find images of cars every time I want to log into slack.
Posts made by Crusher48
@davaned The problem is that renewing with the commander clears all boosts from a creep, so a commander is unlikely to be able to field more than a low-level harass force with renewing. Plus, depending on whether the hallway rooms are powers-enabled, it may need to find power-enabled rooms to pit stop in on the journey.
RE: Is cross-sharding too difficult?
The thing is that in this case, due to the design of shard3, players are likely to not want to get CPU subscriptions when they know that they won't be able to cross-shard effectively without losing all progress. Even if it's good game design, it's bad for the business end of this game if people are disincentivized to get CPU subscription.
Is cross-sharding too difficult?
I believe that the difficulty of crossing between shards with CLAIM creeps could make cross-sharding a non-viable option for players in shard3 looking to expand. As a result, shard3 players are likely to find no reason to buy a CPU subscription and spread out into the rest of the map, which could pose a monetization issue for the game. There are two reasons for this:
1: With a total lifetime of 600 ticks, a claim creep must traverse the distance to the portal, then the distance out of the portal to a destination room. This is not as much of a problem in other shards where the player can build a new room right next to the portal, but is a problem in shard3 where a player might not have the CPU needed to establish an outpost next to the portal to send a claim creep through, or might not have any viable expansion routes because all of the inter-shard portals near their rooms lead into controlled territory.
2: Cross-sharding an AI is difficult as memory is not shared across shards normally. Thus, the AI on the arrival shard must either guess as to an arriving creep's function, or utilize the raw memory inter-shard segment, which must be manually typed and filled with data about each cross-shard arrival.
Now, experienced players are quite likely to find a way around these limitations, but it seems that new players could face trouble if they want to expand without respawning and losing all of their rooms in shard3. Can anything be done about this without breaking other aspects of the game?
To add interesting gameplay dynamics, it should be possible to over-renew a creep, giving them a lifespan above 1500 ticks, up to a maximum of 7500 ticks. Doing so would enable a creep to have a longer lifespan that would allow it to cross a further distance or take advantage of its boosts for a longer period, but to counterbalance this, extra lifespan above 1500 ticks is divided by (1+(int)(lifespan/1500)). Thus, the lifespan gain is divided by 2 above 1500, divided by 3 above 3000, divided by 4 above 4500, and divided by 5 above 6000 ticks to live. Thus, it would cost the cost of 3 normal creeps to over-renew a creep up to 3000 energy, and boosting a creep lifespan up to 7500 ticks would require at least 15x the creep's normal cost, 3x more expensive than merely spawning 3 creeps for the same job. If necessary, boosting costs could also be increased for creeps with greater-than-normal lifespans to prevent imbalance in the mineral economy, but IMO the potential to trade a large amount of energy and spawn time for a reduced mineral/tick cost could pose an interesting trade-off.
Bonus: In addition, renewing could also be enabled for CLAIM creeps, pushing them up to a maximum lifespan of 3000 (enough to cross 60 rooms), at an incredibly high cost (doing this should be more expensive than building up a chain of rooms to claim at the destination, but in exchange for being faster and not consuming a GCL during the process).
RE: PTR Changelog 2018-11-01: Creep.pull()
Interesting, but isn't this only viable for harvesters that just want to sit at the source all day? There's no practical reason to have a 50 move and a 50 carry creep over just having 2 creeps with 25 move and 25 carry, since this is not only harder to code, but also requires 3 const calls to pull the cargo creep. Even for harvesters it might be a bit impractical due to both difficulties in coding and the fact that it triples the CPU cost to move the harvester in exchange for a minor savings of having less WORK on your harvester.
IMO, this feature should result in only the lead creep being charged for a single const CPU call, allowing it to be useful to save CPU for long cargo trains with boosts (as a 50 boosted move engine could haul 200 boosted carry parts with 200 capacity each, for 40000 total carry capacity).
RE: Make trading subscription tokens more profitable for everyone
What exactly would the purpose of requiring players to invest energy to turn their subscription into coins be?