I like what I see for the most part. Without hard numbers on the rewards for killing it's hard to say. I'm guessing a lot of these are going to get killed at stage one.
Personally though, I'm happy to see more PvE content.
I never take this argument about "old / new players" as valid. It's a MMO after all. It means players have constant persistent progress, and the game mechanics should make it possible to have progress for years.
Personally I think in this case @Shibdib is reaching here- it reminds me of jokingly arguing that energy should be removed because it gives older players a greater advantage. Let's be honest though- letting people recover some of their boosts is going to benefit pretty much anyone using boosts relatively equally, and boosts are already a major stepping stone for newbies.
That being said, @artch your previous actions don't really agree with the sentiment you express here. In the power creeps PTR you provided a shield against downward abuse by requiring that powers explicitly be enabled in a room by touching the controller before they can be used.
I want to stress the difference between advantages- Veterans have an advantage in raw war materials, income, cpu management, etc. that yes, they've earned. These can also be overcome, but don't extend this to a blanket statement that it's OK to shaft new players to preserve old ones.
A player should be able to overcome issues with enough skill- veteran players have more skill (and code, which I'd argue is an extension of skill).
I still remember when this was on the website:
I guess we've come a long way since then.
In the interests of olive branching and not going full @tedivm on this, I do like the idea of unboosting. I'm not so certain that killing lab time is really the solution. I feel like some sort of middle ground would be useful- eat some lab time, but not just shutting down the lab entirely.
@mototroller I like the idea of being able to build in hostile rooms- it wouldn't necessarily be easy, or even useful most of the time, but simply having the option is significant.
Overall, I like the idea.
If we do get a shard3, I think it may be time to take another look at the way portals connect shards; shard0 and shard2 are already extremely isolated from each other, shard3 will make that even worse, and I feel like this sharding also sort of echos in the community as well.
A few ideas:
Portals in highway rooms can lead to any shard, not just the next shard over
Portals in sector centers can lead anywhere
Portals that creeps can define what shard to exit on
A structure allowing players to create their own portals
Something something power creeps
I think this would help a lot with preventing shards from becoming islands.
@artch Fair enough. I see my accusations were at least partially misplaced.
The issue remains that player engagement is falling, the community knows almost nothing about what's going on behind the scenes, and we're left with drafts and promises that go nowhere. I'll admit I'm one of the more irritated people about this, and I've been attempting to keep my irritation to myself up until now, but the issue does exist, and I don't feel like it's being addressed.
let's please not judge a 3-person part-time team with standards of an AAA project with many full-time developers and managers.
We're not. We (as a community) would just like some sign that you haven't died or suffered some horrible accident.
As for speaking to the Community Managers- I get a strong sense that they don't know anything more than I do. Both of them are loyal to you and to Screeps almost to a fault, but I don't think they actually have anything we don't aside from maybe a private email.
I know I've brought up issues with communication and lack of a roadmap to both of our CMs in the past and was promised improvement, which means either those concerns never made it to you or you disregarded them. Worse, I feel like they've been put in a very untenable position- Both CMs have tried to reassure us of plans for Screeps, discussed concerns and handled questions, but without hearing from you all of that falls by the wayside. CMs exist largely to handle the day to day BS that comes from having to deal with any online community- they aren't a get out of jail free card for community engagement.
I understand that life happens. Things happen that you aren't prepared for, things go wrong, and sometimes you just get screwed, but when you vanish for months at a time there are consequences for that. The truly sad thing is that the slow bleeding out of the community doesn't have to happen in cases like this. Ten minutes of "Hey guys, was really busy this week- a quick rundown" would do wonders, and give the people trying to support both you and the game something to point at when people like myself start complaining about the lack of engagement, the lack of activity, the appearance of lack of direction, and so on.
If nothing else, help those people help you.
@atavus I think you've touched off something very important here, in that the community no longer has any faith in the development of Screeps, and that the Screeps team has done nothing to combat this opinion.
Words are cheap, and frankly we've seen a lot of them (as I linked in my previous post). Actual development and engagement, on the other hand, we've seen very little to nothing of is the last year. We've heard lots of promises, to the point where Power Creeps have literally become a meme on slack.
Atavus also touches on another extremely important point- regular changes matter more than sweeping updates, even if sweeping updates look better for marketing and make you feel cooler. The games with the most forgiving communities and engaged devs (Factorio, Space Engineers, so on) have regular updates, even if it's just a post saying "Hey, this is what we've been working on, but it turns out that what we're working on is really hard so we had to make a tool to make it less hard, and that's all we really got done.", and in-game updates are incremental- signs that the devs are still alive and tweaking the game, even if they aren't releasing anything huge.
I feel like we, as a community, are being asked to take a very great deal on faith here that I don't feel that the Screeps Team has necessarily earned.
We closely monitored the recent events staged by the community on their own initiative, and we are excited to announce the start of the development of a new game powered by the Screeps-based engine. It will offer a completely new experience for those who want a faster, more dynamic gameplay. Screeps Arena will become our second project and a separate Steam game as a match-based RTS with the same engine but a completely different take on game content. A separate page for this project is coming very soon to allow you to follow all updates. Stay tuned!
So let me get this straight...
After having seen zero development for five months, the announcement of Room Event Log (which fell through), teasing about power creeps with zero changes to prod, the snafu with Pull Requests getting shut down with no explanation, and lifetime subs becoming a thing, there is now an announcement for a new game that isn't Screeps?
You realize how bad this looks, right?
TLDR: When a disproportionately large part of an existing branch is being changed (say, 50% or more), add a popup saying "Are you sure you want to do this?", complete with a notification that you're overwriting a crapton of your code.
Now in detail- I, as well as several others, have had issues with the browser deleting code. I had my entire codebase get wiped a couple years ago, and it seems to be a regular thing on slack for someone to say that their code either was mass deleted by accident to to sim or the tutorial changing branches without saying anything, or to have an issue with having a browser tab for console output overwrite a browser tab for code editing, and so on.
I'm not even necessarily saying it isn't user error, I'm just saying a bit of idiotproofing would go a long way to help. Having the ability to see a diff and choosing what to keep (or to cancel all changes) would just be gravy.