By sending nukes to your own rooms to reset the safe mode cooldown as you like seems like an unintended game effect. By utilizing this, you can keep safemoding up in a room as long as you keep sending nukes.

I know in the past, respawning for the safe mode resets has been considered as abusing game mechanics, so i wonder if this falls in the same category?

Should this mechanic be changed?

This was recently used as part of an attack on MMO and I think the same player is now setting up again to use the same tactic. Which is why I would like to raise this question again, as its actively (ab)used and not just theory crafting.

That is the correct amount? (It was originally 5000, but has since been adjusted to 10k)

https://docs.screeps.com/api/#Game.cpu.generatePixel

spawn.spawnCreep([MOVE], 'scout', {directions: [] });

returns OK, but on the next tick nothing is spawning.

Even if the empty array is not a valid direction, spawnCreep should probably either return an error code (invalid args?) or spawn the creep instead of returning the OK.

@tdxtor said in Requesting Update on New Power Creep Roles?:

Whoa, watch out asking why the dev team hasn't completed something they have announced. Certain members of the dev team like @artch have a real problem with people saying anything that might challenge their self-worth. He's threatened to ban people for less.

Can we have a ban on this guy please, he is just a troll seeking attention..

Removing Game.market (and all its method/properties), as was proposed on slack, is more game breaking than not being able to build the terminal in my opinion.

In my opinion, disabling markets should be done in a non breaking way, for example return some error code on creating orders. If the entire Game.market object is removed, silly things like access to Game.market.credits would error out.

Did you check the Game.market.incomingTransactions and Game.market.outgoingTransactions? They list you last transactions with credit price and quantity (amount) traded, just multiply those and you get the credit change for each transaction? Or are you asking for something else?

Transfer is the wrong direction, you are looking for creep.withdraw in this case. Although withdrawing energy from the spawn is generally not a recommended strategy.

Transfer resource from the creep to another object. The target has to be at adjacent square to the creep.

Withdraw resources from a structure or tombstone. The target has to be at adjacent square to the creep

Bumping this thread as the Screeps SC extension is no longer working.

Having more information on the Market History page is something i really miss. Instead of the text "Resources sold" please consider implementing more information here so you dont have to click every single order to see the actual resources and amounts that where sold.

Would also love to see my structures in the Choose room dialog, makes it a bit hard to recognize my rooms when its only displaying the terrain in the selection dialog

@deft-code

@deft-code said in Discussion: long-range logistics revamp:

I like both ideas of putting a minimum range from sources and decaying the containers from a harvest action. @U-238's idea of allowing the warp-containers to be closer but increasing cost seems like a good one (more remote mining options the better). I think the decay should be based on energy harvested from the action rather than the action/intent itself otherwise supersizing the harvesters could bypass much of the problem.

Even cooler if we get a new visualization in the client to "show" the sources reacting with the warp-containers when a source is harvested.

What if there is no minimum range for the structure itself, but the decay is dependant on the distance to the .harvest action, sort of like how towers are more effective on short ranges. This could allow WC directly adjacent to the source, but at a high decay cost, scaling down with the range to the source. Make it super expensive when close to the source, then lower costs based on longer distances.