Hmm I think as soon you activate the safe mode it should also turn off the power.
This should be a good compromise, since this is somewhat finite.
You can directly reactivate power or leave it be once you are in safe mode.

That is actually a great idea, and definitely something that could result in turf wars.
But instead of RGB I would suggest hue that is only a integer between 0-360 and makes color schemes easy.

Isn't there already a heuristic that is able to identify open source bots?
But I agree this is a good idea.

Maybe even scale with each GCL starting with 10kb and double that on a new level.
You teach 2mb on level 5 this way.

Well yes it is getting more and more philosophical, and I'm clearly one of the reason for that.
But it should be clear by now that everybody cares about this game.

I know that I suggest a lot of radical stuff.
And I don't expect all aspects of such to be implemented but if just one notion of those is sticking to peoples head means I was able to push the Screeps development a bit further. I'm satisfied.

I always try to see things objective to avoid being astray by my own emotions.
Sadly I can't say that this isn't the case in this discussion, in respect of me and other members of this community.
(I leave that, up to you, to figure out when it started)

Opinion incoming:
I can't stand the notion "that things are this way, and should stay this way" without even considering alternatives.
It is a shame that this discussion degraded to a match between opinions.
Just look at the adjustment of the room constants a while ago, wasn't that a good thing?

@davaned Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.
But I don't get why you are saying this isn't a essential part of the gameplay?

Choosing to die or not to lvl up is completely up to the player, neither is it in anyway breaking the rules of the game.
This may not be the intention the developer of the game may had, but is still a valid way to play.
Just because somebody is doing "wired things" in your point of view, doesn't invalidate his personal goals.

Limiting your actions to only what the game intend to be, is a very narrow way thought.

@Davaned Well yeah, we like the same things.
And I wonder where that would be compromised by my suggestions?
Only that some things will be slightly switched around.

Is totally incorrect. You will quite literally always reach RCL 8, and should always try and reach it.
If you stop upgrading your controller it will start downgrading, so as long as you maintain a room you will slowly reach RCL 8.

Not stopping to upgrade is a design choice -> it is completely up to the player.
But it is most of the time in the players interest to continually maintain a room.

OK you seem to have a lot of assumptions about me, and still some misconceptions what I said and what not.

So the first part of ranting about I won't be able to afford subscription tokens is true I don't have the money to buy those.
But the second is completely false on the account you don't know anything about me and my programming skills.
I haven't put any afford for the script live on the official server for various reasons that I'm not going to discuss, maybe some of them but not now.
And I have absolutely no reason to change that just for an argument.

Please don't compare this to the careful designed and constantly adjusted marked in EVE.
And you are right new players are very unlikely to gain PLEX but not unheard of especially if they found a good corp.

The idea to split the sub tokens into smaller units is to speed up the acquisition of such to give a small achievement without changing the value.
Besides that a boost of CPU a couple of days maybe just what you need, to allow you to sustain yourself.

RCL 8 is not a inevitable consequence, it is a consequence of the design choices made by the player.
That said, there is currently almost no reason to willingly stop upgrading a controller.
The botched thing on the official is clearly proof that you will reach it someday by simply leaving it be.
So you are valid to an extend there.

It is logical due to the fact that virtually "no one plays" it, all that means it is lacking a reason to be played.

What makes you so certain that I haven't done exactly that.

Stating the obvious, my point is to extend on that with i.e.: a trade rank. and various other metrics.

Sorry haven't specified exactly the complexity I mean:
Complex rule system -> rigid gameplay -> bad for new players, only provides a handful ways of best practices.
simple flexible rule system -> complex gameplay -> easy for new players, provides a myriad of solutions (hard to master)

And sorry again missed a "new" by the toxic argument. (fixed that)

And where the did you get the idea that I want to abolish the market, hell no. Look up the definition of a thought experiment.

@wtfrank Ah now we are getting where.
Yes I'm making suggestions to evolve this game, some which are radically trans-formativ to achieve a better overall experience.
These are based on my experiences, knowledge and opinions as it should be and I'm pretty sure you are on the same page there.

If you view this argument here abstract it is almost similar to the whole left vs. right battle raging over the non biased news. hilarious imo.

So yes almost every point you make is valid, viewing it as a rigid system that you currently like.
But I don't view screeps nearly as a finished product yet and see still a long way to go.
So I make suggestions that indeed result in vast gameplay changes. I love screeps concept and hold it dear.
But that doesn't mean that I'm satisfied with the current gameplay. (which should also be clear by now)

Almost any changes I suggest have the goal to make the game more fun in the overall picture and better sustainable for the devs.
You see, for it to be sustainable it has to attract a constant stream of new players willing to give it a try.
And I'm willing to make trade-offs here and there.

Best example the sub tokens, I don't like pay to win, I really don't.
But in my current situation I'm not able to sustain a subscription, so a sub tokens are a very good method for a win win situation with a marginal loss of fairness:
Devs get paid, I get to play the game.
The private servers I play on, are already available infrastructure with open capacity as soon those are gone so are the servers. My suggestions to strengthen low-mid lvl rooms are to an extend to somewhat mitigate the effects of p2w but also to make sure that RCL 8 is not necessarily a key goal.
They work in a system.

So what I'm missing... right my definition of a fun game:
A competition that gives clear results, without the infringement of harm to the participants.
(This doesn't count in game violence that is part of the rules, you are free to chose the games to play. So don't bitch about them)

So Screeps is a game that is deliberately in a sandbox style, with clear developed rules that allows creativity.
But the competition part in screeps is completely underdeveloped.
A sandbox game needs also a lot of possible goals to achieve.
Goals that need specific decisions to be made even if that means sacrificing some other ones.
But the beauty of this is that you can try again for a different path.

Next thing, the "Rooms don't matter much".
Yes every one has different metrics for choosing one, but in terms of gameplay the only value they boil down to is time.
By drastically diversifying the world, values like resource, strategic position etc. would get predominant in room choice. And that is my reasoning behind the rooms don't matter much.

OK this is long enough already I gave a piece of mind. I'm absolutely not hell bend on my solutions and would happily accept other that satisfy my points.
But only if they involve refining what we have instead of just adding a additional layer of complexity games are only fun if people play with you.
A complex rule set is toxic to new players since they have to spend enormous energy of learning the rules before they can play.

No what I'm saying is that the function name and result are not accurate associations.
You could also reflect it by changing the result to the correct one.

@artch I think this discussion shows that you should pull that a bit up on your priority list
But I love those kind of discussions they are clear indicators where something is lacking