Topics created by MrFaul

@Geir1983 didn't solve my problem so... Was anybody able to reproduce it yet? WTF is wrong with my machine or rather steam install... or both? I'll mark it as solved for now, since it seems to be on my end. Perhaps it is unrelated with the update, as long i can run the git version everything is fine.

The disadvantage of getting rid of the signs is that newbies don't get much idea about who is active in the area and might be interested in that territory. Newbie zones aren't sterile areas, it's quite common for adjacent players to take control of rooms once the walls come down.

Hello, the strange German dude, Of course, implementing what you're talking about in Screeps is not an option. This change would decrease the number of tactics and use-cases of spawning and boosting mechanics (the example is, you can spawn 6-9-12 50parts creeps, renew them to have the same ttl using the spawner, then boost with labs), increasing logistics difficulty at the same time. This is exactly opposite to what we're trying to achieve in game design. Regardless of that, I thank you for wording your idea here on the forum. While it can't be directly applied to the game, it still can be the source of inspiration in some other activities.

I have seen a bug where if you sit on shard1/E1N1 and change the url to shard2/E1N1; then use the minimap to look at a nearby room you end up on shard1 again. Not sure if that has caused your problem, but just in case it is related.

@semperrabbit @Tigga @wtfrank Yes, your view point is totally legit. As SemperRabbit noted it is the the monotonous part that bugs me. While I like optimization problems a bit of variety to spice it up couldn't hurt, like hunting for caravans that offer resources that actually do something. One feeling I get that there isn't a really good power balance between the RCL levels. Also not really much benefit of friendly inter player interaction, that makes me a bit sad.

OH and of course share it to raise awareness that we have a voice!

I must admit this does sound like a nice idea. I don't have auto room code yet, but do have auto room building from a plan I made. Being able to use the same code for both make sense. I don't respawn much on MMO (done it once), but on S+ I keep getting wiped out, if I go in the same room I have to be very careful to pick the same place the plan has for the spawn. So claim the room, code starts running (if there is any), then ifs first to place the spawn wins either manual or code. The only diff from a noobs pov would be having to "claim the room" rather than just navigate to one. But I don't think a "claim" then "place" would be too much extra work.

@orlet Honestly cross linking the game stats and forum profile would be very welcome. It is kinda annoying to build the url yourself every time you want to check on somebody's creeps when he asked for help in the forum.

Hmm since there could be multiple rooms something like RoomVisual.subscribed or Game.getSubscribedRooms() would be nice indeed.

@tigga exactly, and that is why I also want to introduce the "transferring to the game" mechanic to prevent such pay to win scenarios. By requiring energy to transfer them to the game it would be a ±0 calculation and I'm pretty sure prices will adjust fast accordingly to supply and demand. Besides, your pay to win argument isn't really valid, look at EVE online. When they host the annual tournament people sell massive amounts of PLEX to finance their ships and modules. This has always a positive feedback in the market instead of negativ. (Also a huge boon for CCP Games :- )

Syncing the server to steam cloud might not work so well, you could sync db.json, but beyond that it could have issues. However, you can also host the server on a vm or cloud provider to have a central place for it.

@mrfaul In order for your idea to work we'd need to run a separate container for every user to manage their resources usage, with instant startup, in an environment of thousands synchronized users. So my point still stands - the complexity of such a system makes it not even a major refactor, but a huge R&D project with uncertain results.

Maybe this should somewhere into the CPU limit doc... Apparently even veterans are slightly confused

To be honest I don't like the lifetime reduction myself, but I haven't found another way in my thought experiments without making it to op. You still need to be able to counter a bomb and adding 900 ticks to the "keep it alive" Paradigma is imo to harsh on the defending party. All other ideas are way to complicated to be fun and would add significant development time.