Topics created by Hernanduer

@davaned This mechanic is not supposed to be temporary. It's an opt-in mechanism which allows newcomers not to worry about the added complexity of this gameplay. We don't have plans to remove it anytime soon, including on new shards.

That explains it, I'm not checking if I'm the owner when I run foreach on all PCs in Game.powerCreeps.

@hernanduer Hi, thank you for your report, we'll take a look

@stevetrov said in Partial Boosts: for most usecases its only slightly better than using recycle. That in lies the problem I suppose. A lot of the functionality here overlaps with recycling. @poma said in Partial Boosts: Honestly it feels like increasing the game complexity for edge cases. I'd argue it's not really adding complication to the end user's code. The (undefined) default would still boost the creep's parts for its entire lifespan. The new variable on boosted parts likely wouldn't affect anyone adversely, and I think it unlikely many even use the existing boost variables on the individual creep parts. This is just an idea to give us more flexibility for creativity, especially since the devs are actively trying to increase the costs of boosts. Perhaps when power creeps come out (hahahahahahha) then this idea will offer greater usability since they have the potential to legitimize many more niches for creeps.

Thanks Dissi, it wasn't a mineral thankfully, but just like 20 road sites I had to walk over manually to disappear them before my guys started building them.

I think what a lot of people are upset about (at least this is my case) is that we feel we are being left out of the loop. This is the first place that I have seen anything mentioned about the focus being moved away from power creeps. It was my understanding that for the past 2+ months power creeps were the main focus of development. Most of us were expecting to be using power creeps for a while now and in preparation of that many players focuses have shifted away from GCL and toward gathering/processing power. I think what myself and at least some others are frustrated about is that we were never informed that power creeps were going to be delayed much less delayed so significantly. I think most of us in the community understand the need to switch focus towards things like optimizations, working in the programming industry I'm sure most of us have done this at least a few times throughout our careers. However at least in my job if I gave my boss a road map for a new feature, and then a month and a half after that feature was scheduled to be released I then told him that I had switched priorities a while ago and just never told him that the feature is being pushed 6 months back. I would probably be in a lot of trouble. What I'm getting at here is that whats done in the past is past, but in the future I feel it would go a long way with the community if we were better informed of the situation. I can't imagine that it was just 2 days ago when the dev team decided that optimizations need to be the #1 priority. While screeps is a sandbox game there are a lot of us who do play it as a strategy game and I think most of us understand the need for changing priorities, but we would like to be informed so that we too have the option of changing priorities.

I'm sorry, a couple of walls (between W17S8 and W17S9) have removed.

I'm also tempted to believe that my timeouts are related to something outside my code.I get about 12 per day, and they seem to occur at fairly random places in my loop. These aren't actually hard resets for the most part, although I have seen a couple of those as well. I've set up some profiler code and noticed some interesting patterns. My loop gets processed in phases, and I have alarms that trigger if any single phase uses an unusual amount of CPU. Phases are further subdivided as each room gets processed for that phase, and I have alarms there as well. The vast majority of these processes take less than 1 cpu per tick, but when a timeout happens, several of these alarms get triggered together. Process that usually take less than 1 cpu per tick take more than 100 cpu. Sometimes this results in a timeout, sometimes just a VERY heavy cpu use for that tick. (One explanation could be process that experience heavy use simultaneously is due to logic that depends on some variant of `Game.time % x === 0`, but I don't do that with anything that could take a significant amount of cpu) The easiest scenario would have been a regular pattern that suggested one or more parts of my code that are causing the problem. Since this isn't the case, it seems we can narrow it down to two explanations: 1) Some process that gets executed throughout my loop 2) Some extraneous cause (e.g., garbage collection) I have very few processes that get executed through my loop. One example is my profiler code, the very code that is triggering the alarms, and i'm currently trying to rule that out. Another example is my pathfinding code, which gets ran predominantly in my "actions" phase and only very occasionally somewhere else. Since I'm not seeing the majority of my timeouts in the actions phase, I think I can rule that out. I think one thing that could be very helpful for diagnosing cpu issues is some sort of data about how often they are occurring for others on the server. If you could see a history of your rate of timeouts perhaps together with the average rate on the server, that would be excellent. I don't think the timeouts due to extraneous causes are a big deal if they are affecting everyone to the same degree. It would also be nice not to sink time into investigating the cause when it turns out to be outside the scope of your code. I'll go ahead and make this suggestion in the appropriate forum.

Something like username = "NPC". Someone has to be receiving it, it can't just disappear. Invaders and Source Keepers are owned, why wouldn't the terminals be owned by "NPC"?

I can confirm this. I currently use creeps to dismantle some of my old walls, and have them call target.notifyWhenAttacked(false) before doing anything. Yet I get emails about my walls being attacked. I can also replicate this in the console. On a rampart: > Game.getObjectById('57c9a4ff98f0d97072bdebef').notifyWhenAttacked(false)< 0> Game.getObjectById('57c9a4ff98f0d97072bdebef').notifyWhenAttacked(true)< 0 I see the checkbox correctly trigger off and on again. When I do the same with a constructed wall, the output is similar: > Game.getObjectById('57a1e78accdfa2861a6cc1a0').notifyWhenAttacked(true)< 0> Game.getObjectById('57a1e78accdfa2861a6cc1a0').notifyWhenAttacked(false)< 0 Yet the checkbox does not toggle.

Fixed.

That text bug has been reported no less than three times now

This is still an issue. In an inactive room it can take 10s of ticks to remove a flag.

Yes, we're constantly experimenting with some world parameters. Think of it as a lean year

OK, it is now changed to a simple RCL == 8 check for edge cases when there is only one possible structure per room. Here is function’s source code: exports.checkStructureAgainstController = function(object, roomObjects, roomController) { <span class="hljs-keyword">if</span>(!<span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.user) { <span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> <span class="hljs-keyword">true</span>; } <span class="hljs-keyword">if</span>(!roomController || roomController.level &lt; <span class="hljs-number">1</span> || <span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.user &amp;&amp; roomController.user != <span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.user) { <span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> <span class="hljs-keyword">false</span>; } <span class="hljs-keyword">if</span>(C.CONTROLLER_STRUCTURES[<span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.<span class="hljs-keyword">type</span>][<span class="hljs-number">8</span>] == <span class="hljs-number">1</span>) { <span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> C.CONTROLLER_STRUCTURES[<span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.<span class="hljs-keyword">type</span>][roomController.level] != <span class="hljs-number">0</span>; } <span class="hljs-keyword">var</span> objects = _.filter(roomObjects, {<span class="hljs-keyword">type</span>: <span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.<span class="hljs-keyword">type</span>, user: <span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.user}); <span class="hljs-keyword">if</span>(objects.length &gt; C.CONTROLLER_STRUCTURES[<span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.<span class="hljs-keyword">type</span>][roomController.level]) { objects.sort(exports.comparatorDistance(roomController)); objects = _.take(objects, C.CONTROLLER_STRUCTURES[<span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>.<span class="hljs-keyword">type</span>][roomController.level]); <span class="hljs-keyword">if</span>(!_.contains(objects, <span class="hljs-keyword">object</span>)) { <span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> <span class="hljs-keyword">false</span>; } } <span class="hljs-keyword">return</span> <span class="hljs-keyword">true</span>; };