@artch O.o I must have missed that, sorry and thank you. Has it been decided how to handle power in rooms without controllers? In this post (https://screeps.com/forum/topic/2183/power-creeps-update/19) it was mentioned that it had not been decided yet.

@artch so Room objects will have a property to tell us if power is enabled or not? If we can observe it this is good.

Will there be anything like the following:

Game.map.isPowerEnabled(roomName)?

Room.prototype.powerEnabled?

It would be good to make sure that every possible information gathering feature is added for anything related to all of this. Want to avoid informational gaps similar to the lack of a way to know which rooms on the map are blocked by novice/respawn zones or not.

This seems like a cool feature with some fun possibilities but I do worry about it leading to some undesirable outcomes.

There is already a situation where newbie players can use open source code developed by veterans and have an extreme advantage over other new players.

These re-used code bases can be large and complex. This proposed contract system would incentivize the creation of highly modularized, highly reusable code that is built for highly specialized tasks. There will also be incentive for these contracts to be optimized at some reasonable level if they are to be accepted by those who will be executing them. These pieces of code are intended to be executed for pay and create interesting exchanges between players and in a way expand the reach of every player by using other willing players. This is a fun idea and I think it would be used in some fun and interesting ways that would make the game more enjoyable, but I also see it being used in a much less desirable way.

It doesn't seem an unlikely future where you recognize the way you are getting attacked because you read the code for it in a popular contract, or you destroy a players room and it gets built back up faster and more efficiently than the rest of their code has ever behaved because they copy pasted another popular contract for rebuilding a room.

I personally haven't been super active for a while now but when i was more active I always tried to write my own code for things except for small snippets shared back and forth on slack. I enjoyed the challenge of trying to improve my own code or come up with solutions for things. I also enjoyed being attacked by other players who I could learn from. It is fun to see how others solve similar issues. Conversely, there is little to no fun in being bested by a player who is obviously using known open source code that they did not write themselves.

I can see this contract system making this a bigger issue and causing more copy-paste playing and for that reason I am against the feature in spite of the possible fun uses it could have.

I know that many players do not share my views on this topic. Some may like the idea of being able to copy paste in code for specialized tasks. There are many games out there that are fun and require creativity but eventually become a game where if you want to be successful with little to no effort, you can just look online for popular "builds" pioneered by veteran players and copied by many in the community. I would hate for Screeps to head in that direction regardless of intent.

This is just my personal view and the way I feel about Screeps and what makes it fun for me. I know there are many who have opposing views and thats fine by me, the opposing views are valid. Not looking to spark any debates, I just want to present my opinion on the matter solely as my personal feedback in relation to the contract system.

That is a good suggestion, thanks Hernanduer!

Awesome this will allow for some interesting interactions that, while possible, seemed really janky to do with terminals.

These will be accessible by everyone correct? There is no way to only allow certain users to access your public segments?

Looking forward to the API key features!

I just recently learned that you can send text messages via email by sending to an address like: number@txt.att.net (where 'number' is your phone number and the @ address is different based on your mobile carrier). Some of the info for some carriers can be found here.

It occurred to me that I could possibly set my screeps email address to this and then I would receive game notifications as text messages to my phone. This is a fun idea however as one might imagine, getting all notifications sent to your phone might be bothersome in some situations. 

It would be cool to have an option to add a second email address to our account for notification purposes only, and then modify Game.notify to be able to choose which of the email addresses you want to send the notification to. 

Something like:

Game.notify("My spawn died!", {groupInterval: 60, alternateEmail: true});

or

Game.notify("My spawn died!", {groupInterval: 60, emailIndex: 1});

If it allowed more than 1 extra email address and performed some kind of verification, you could even set it up to email a friend in certain cases (if they verified and approved it).

Tedivm has created a project for doing text notifications here but it would be neat to have this as a built in option.

Also while we are on the topic of Game.notify, it might be nice to have an option to disable any backend processing of the input that we pass to the notification so that we can craft HTML content for the emails without issue.

I'm assuming there will be a global constant for the cooldown period length?

I think i heard from someone that you can build the site to completion and then destroy the extractor itself as a work around. Seems like they need to add a way to destroy these sites though.

@TwoThe it is supposed to restrict use as well. This is evidenced by the fact that say you have 6 towers built at RCL 8 and then your room decays down to RCL 3 where you can only have 1 tower. Now 1 tower will be "active" and 5 towers will be highlighted in red meaning "inactive." If you command all 6 towers to attack/repair/heal something, only the active one will return OK and take the action while the 5 inactive towers will return ERR_RCL_NOT_ENOUGH and fail to take the action. Now if you wait for the room to decay to RCL 2 where you cannot have any towers, and run the same command for all 6 towers to take action, all 6 will return OK and take the action. This is a bug in the engine code that occurs on inactive structures when you are at an RCL that does not allow any of that structure type.