Longshot, but thought I'd ask. I didn't die by invader or player, just got really busy the last couple months and forgot to login. I was a paying player for a couple years in the early days, but eventually reduced my empire back to my OG starting room and went to 10cpu. Haven't really had the time for active play, but enjoyed keeping a room running as a little screeps ant farm.

Just been there in Shard0 W63S14 mining and selling O and H and slowly building my walls up and just... existing.

The only option I see when logging in is to give up ownership of my structures and respawn somehwere else, so I haven't done that. I doubt it's possible, but was hoping I could just reclaim my room and get going again, as all it would take is 1 spawn and it'd be rolling again.

@tigga Yup. I'm one of those 'not around' players. My code has been happily running itself for a long time, but having a level 3 stronghold pop up next to my room effectively shut down my SK harvesting and crushed my energy economy. It's essentially invisible to my code, so, ya know. Just kept pumping out creeps for the meat grinder until I ran out of energy.

Never being an 'offensive' minded player, I don't have code for attacking fortifications. I always just enjoyed base building, economy, etc side of things and only really wrote defensive code. Oh well. Devs gonna do what devs gonna do. I went not around in the first place as it felt more and more there became a "right way" that we were expected to play that didn't mesh what I enjoyed most.

Can't expect my non-updated code to stay relevant forever, but I'm sure I'm not the only one getting messed up by strongholds, etc. right now.

What is the criteria for sectors in Shard 0 being made 'Not Available'? I've yet to see any warning about an area becoming unavailable, and as it seems they never become available again, this is starting to get a bit frustrating.

My northward expansion was cut off long ago when the sector above me became completely unavailable. A week ago I started planning an expansion into a southern sector that was previously held by one of my alliance members, as I'd noticed a few of his rooms had gone uncontrolled, and a handful of others were dropping in level. There were also large stockpiles of minerals still in his rooms. Out of courtesy, I messaged him, and waited for either a response to let me know his status and whether I should claim his territory and scavenge the minerals, or a long enough amount of time to consider a no-response as okay to go ahead.

Logged in today and the entire sector is now not available. Never noticed any sort of warning, but, to be fair I don't login every day, and haven't checked that sector status every day.

Still, having expansion cut off arbitrarily, as well as the effects on trade, since trade is distance based, removing any chance of trade partners in a nearby sector has an effect... these things hinder enjoyment of the game. It seems like, while The Church of the End hasn't made much progress in wiping Shard 0, the developers are effectively working to just slowly push players off of it.

I know some folks enjoy shutting down and respawning elsewhere, moving to different shards, etc. That's fine, but I feel like we should be allowed to play the game in whatever way suits us. I started in the area I'm in, and built my little empire, and would like to stay here until I have to leave by some happening within the game events... not by being pushed out by arbitrary sector closures.

The biggest problem imo, is the inconsistent REACTION_TIMES. It would be one thing to have T2 take longer than T1, T3 longer than T2, but to give different times for different reactions makes optimizing and rewriting lab logic overly complicated as some T3 boosts are just clearly not worth the time involved anymore, while others still may be.

So not I need logic that says go ahead and produce XLHO2 as normal, but not XZH2O because it's not worth the time, so stop the chain at ZH2O. Don't bother with XGH2O anymore, which was previously the #1 priority, because you can't possibly produce it fast enough to keep upgraders boosted, so better GCL strategy is now to claim, upgrade, unclaim, repeat until that gets nerfed.

Basically you can't really create lab logic that applies to all reactions equally anymore because reaction times are now unequal.

I'm not sure this makes T1/T2 more viable, since T3 is still the optimal effect per creep / tick / cpu cost which are important factors. Really it just makes some T3's unviable by creating an artificial limitation that further slows down the game and reduces the reward for time / effort invested.

Just my experience with it so far. It certainly causes a need for rethinking various strategies, and that probably appeals to the Max GCL, liable to get bored / stagnant crowd. But I'm not sure complicating lab systems while reducing the reward will inspire new players or even mid-level players much.

Whew. Back finally. Thanks Artem and crew for getting this fixed finally. Now to rebuild some containers... 

Yes. I'm currently running a branch with a single file with an empty main loop in it. I can't edit memory while being hit with endless hard reset errors. I understand things are busy with the new shard, but no one can take a minute to help a subscriber who can't even play? 

At around 22:10 UTC yesterday I started to get "script temporary blocked due to hard reset" errors. One after the next after the next from both shard0 and shard1 in console. 

I've tried various troubleshooting steps, including switching to an empty main loop, with the conclusion that none of my code is even being executed, so I can't "change my code to prevent causing hard timeout resets". 

I submitted a support request around 23:10 yesterday, to which I've received only an automated response.

Starting to get a bit impatient. Time is everything in this game, losing 19 hours and counting of progress harvesting, mining, upgrading, etc is pretty crappy. Not to mention how many ticks are going to have to go into rebuilding everything that's decayed when... or if... the problem eventually gets fixed. 

Mostly the total lack of response from support is starting to leave a real sour taste in my mouth. With not so much as a "we're looking into it", or "we actually give a #$@%" . 

Agreed. I think especially since this is a subscription based service, the performance needs to be both better, and more stable. As it is, while I'm paying the same amount each month that I was when I started, as time goes on, I'm receiving less and less for my money as there are fewer and fewer ticks per month. 

Optimally would be keeping ticks to a steady couple seconds reliably. But perhaps if that's not possible, the subscription price should change, either lowering to compensate for the instability of the service, or being a sliding scale based on how many ticks there were that month. 

Honestly, I wouldn't be subscribing anymore if it weren't for the player community, slack, etc.