You misread, it requires the creep to be NOT spawned.
That makes so much more sense.
Should this have a directions property? It would be great to not spawn my power creeps outside of ramparts if I have a power spawn on the edge of a defended line.
Since I don't see any "can spawn" functions, are we to assume that power creeps are free to spawn if they are off cooldown?
The creep must not be spawned in the world in order to call this method.
Why does this require the power creep be spawned? So, if while testing I create a power creep, and then I want to delete it, I have to spawn it first?
Otherwise this looks great!
More pointless questions about WIP powers \o/
.cancelSpawn()and then OPERATE_SPAWN to quickly spawn a small creep before the an operator can reapply DISRUPT_SPAWN?
Lastly just a random idea. Should use costs maybe scale with levels? I feel like some of the random powers you are forced to take become useless, since they don't stack and cost just as much as the level 5 version to use. It might be cool to have the option to use 3 level 1 powers together, rather than 1.5 level 5 powers.
That the same as this issue?
Assuming traditional 6W1C3M miners, OPERATE_SPAWN makes very little sense. Actually, this is pretty much what was being discussed here. It seems pointless to increase spawn capacity for this. You run out of CPU long before you run out of spawn capacity for more small miners.
However, if you use spawn capacity to not necessarily make more remote mines, but to make bigger miners, it means that you are spending more spawn capacity on reducing the CPU you are spending per remote mine. I had already considered using large miners, but hadn't fully calculated the spawn load on doing it.
In this context the power makes sense. It saves CPU at the cost of energy and ops. I still think it is probably a bit underpowered, but It's closer to what I would expect from a power with this context in mind. I am not sure it fits with how I plan on using power creeps, but I can see where it could be used.
We'd need to stop developing and start debating on forums full time if we try to satisfy everyone's need for information.
K, that's a fair point
Creeps like this would show up at your doorstep:
35T 47H 16M
35T 47H 16M
40T 110W 30M
Pretty sure that's what 3m damage to your ramparts before you can spawn your 50 part creeps, which should be enough to make a dent in their armor, assuming you spawned more than one and then boosted them.
Before I continue I want to be clear here. I am not trying to be difficult. I really love game theory and enjoy discussing it, but it does get a little annoying when the reason, cause, and purpose are all be summed up in "because". I want to know the actual thought behind it. I have already calculated it based on what I know. I want to know what you know. I can understand not wanting to solve a problem for us, since that is a huge part of the game, however, I feel like either I am not understanding how some of these powers interact, or default room spawn capacity was miscalculated when designing OPERATE_SPAWN.
I feel like the original query has become less clear as this discussion has gone on. I don't understand (and it seems a few others might be in the same boat) how your description of OPERATE_SPAWN makes any sense.
Could you give more details on how you see it being used? EXTEND_SOURCE as described does not inherently make OPERATE_SPAWN useful. Actually the way it was originally worded, it's quite likely that it would actually decrease the spawn capacity required for a single room to generate the same amount of energy, since it would reduce the number of haulers wasted on long distance remotes.
Our intention is to tune powers in such a way that they allow to achieve the same economy/military goals doing less actions, hence using less CPU. Control Level is about quantity, Power Level is about efficiency. Extensive vs intensive growth.
But then refute your own statement with:
My point is that EXTEND_SOURCE doesn't replace remote mining
Increasing the size of the sources means that you need fewer sources to achieve the same energy production, or in contrast, can manage more sources for higher energy production.
It seems that you have only considered the latter, when the former is more efficient, easier to defend, and easier to find rooms that support it. If you have spawn capacity and cpu left over to mine a few more nearby sources, great, but it's likely not going to be more efficient to spend ops saturating this room with overextended remotes when you can just claim a new room and use more short range EXTEND_SOURCE operators there and forget about OPERATE_SPAWN.
it adds on top of it, so you need more spawn capacity to handle new opportunities.
What opportunities? OPERATE_SPAWN costs ops. It isn't just about whether I can spare levels on my power creep to increase the spawn capacity for some half efficient long distance remote mines. It's competing with the other operator powers as well. It's even competing with just outright selling the ops on the market.
You will miss out on opportunities simply by using OPERATE_SPAWN. Is it worth it? Are your long distance remote mines worth more than the ops you are spending to mine them? How much energy do you have to harvest for it to be worth more than 300% production rate on your labs? I'm quite sure this was answered already though... I don't think it is even in question. It's not even remotely ( puns) close.
Of course nobody will choose having just one room literally, it was just an example, all players will try to find some balance
Um... one room was my example to try and demonstrate the most lopsided balance scenario possible, where even with an absolutely excessive amount of power and absolutely no GCL that spawn capacity still doesn't end up being very useful.
Obviously nobody only will have one room. That was the point. There are very few situations where more spawn capacity could net an economic benefit, and I think that they are only used because there is free spawn capacity, not because it can be purchased with OPERATE_SPAWN.
Math and numbers are still under discussion and can be changed while testing on the PTR, but that's the idea.
So did you not want feedback on the powers in the planner until they hit PTR?
Commander and especially Executor should be included in this equation to make it work.
You mean the two classes we aren't supposed to be giving feedback on because you wanted to release the operator first and have us ignore the other two classes while talking about the operator in isolation? :trollface:
Looks like your connection to Screeps Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.