The idea is to take away visibility from rooms that your script cannot see. No longer would you be able to just look at the map and know what your script cannot know, letting you essentially bypass the visibility rules with direct commands and manually placed flags. If possible, in this world, even terrain should be hidden in non-visible rooms.

For an extra challenge, a second rule could be to no longer show usernames of unfriendly creeps and structures. I think this would neatly eliminate any form of allied play, and bring some interesting strategic puzzles to consider.

Spawning new into a shard with these rules should be handled a bit differently. Instead of allowing a player to select a room on the map, a short list of rooms should be randomly selected for the player to choose from, showing the terrain, source, mineral, controller as usual. If the player finds these choices unsuitable, he can request that the server re-roll a new set of suitable starting rooms after a brief cooldown time (30 seconds or so).

Admittedly, this would also break any concept of spectating on this shard, but I think the individual challenge in such a world could be refreshing for some players. Of course, this is a major world rule, and I wouldn't want to break what already exists. This is proposed merely as a possible set of rules for an alternative shard. Those who find these rules unappealing, are free to play on other shards.

One of my oldest grievances with this game is the instant respawn issue.

The issue is that a player can click the spawn controller and release control of the room. Then in mere seconds, a different player, or in some cases even the same player can click respawn, select the room and lock it down for an additional 20k ticks of safe mode.

There should be a cooldown when any room drops to RCL 0 preventing any player from respawning into that room for at least 24 hours, possibly as long as 72 hours. Claim creeps would be unaffected.

That would prevent a lot of the headaches players have with bad manners and just plain bad luck when they clear a room to expand.

I'm not so sure there's really a difference. The obvious doomsday scenario is pay to win multi-account empires. But we already have massive multi-account empires dominating the game.

Personally I hate how alliances have changed the world of screeps, although I have long since accepted that whether I like it or not, they are here to stay.

So from my perspective, I really don't see a downside to allowing multi-account play anymore. They would not be any different than what we already have.

fixed, apparently.

I have not tested exhaustively, but it appears this function reports false for all rooms in shard 1.

Something tells me this is not intended behavior.

Reported by several people in Slack.

Nuff said.

Currently, we have a code branch for sim, and a code branch for world. With the very soon to exist shard system, it would be very helpful to have a code branch for each shard as well.

What we do on our primary shard, could be quite different than what we do with a small colony on a different shard. 

Why should it only be PvP? If an Invader or a Source Keeper damages you, you should get that information too.

Alternatively, if the idea of a dead creep telling no tales is really such a big issue for people. the alternative is to extend it off of Room. If this direction is chosen it should be subject to normal visibility rules. As already suggested, I think an array of damage sources would make sense, but in this case it needs to list both attacker and defender for each event.