@nobodysnightmare it was probably unfair to accuse you of not respecting the community... I can't undo that I said that.
It is just not visible to me how you care about the negative responses you get here and how you weigh the constructive feedback that you receive.
@artch that's all you have to say to an idea that's trying to catch your points and addressing the overwhelming concerns in the community?
I am not sure if you even have slightest respect for your community at all.
The proposal of CONSECUTIVE calls means you have to commit long term to a specific amount instead of paying whenever the bucket is full. You need to actually know how much CPU you can spare. And by not working on the bucket, but CPU it “hurts“ more.
I would have wanted you to respond in more detail than just “this sounds boring to me“.
I agree to Helam.
In my initial steam review of the game I wrote something like “all the problems are REAL coding problems“ and how I liked that. I.e. The game mechanics make sense and all that's left is coding.
This challenge sounds not fun, but like integrating with a weird vendor API at work.
Also a winning way around this mechanic is giving up the game, which you should not encourage. I.e. If I do not care about creeps getting anywhere and if I do not care about maximum map coverage, then I will just go for three rooms, keep them alive and defended and generate pixels, filling my Steam wallet with money to buy other games. Why would you encourage that?
@artch I neither unterstand the initial post nor your response.
What's the problem that you intended to fix? How will this change make the situation better?
Others point to high amount of credit farming, though this is only possible if other players are still in possession of credits. As far as I understood the mechanic, pixels encourage saving CPU, which is good for server cost. Now I am unsure whether I should still generate pixels.
Or whether I should play less Screeps and just generate pixels, then they would not interfere at all, because there are no rooms and nothing else using CPU...
Yeah, I just can't follow your train of thought here at all...
Also: holy cow, is this my avatar on those Screenshots? 
I can't seem to figure out drawing unfilled (stroke only) circles.
On room visuals I would do fill: null, but that gives me a black fill on the map.
Anything I am missing?
@smokeman did you see Game.cpu.unlockedTime?
I think this should give you your remaining time, at least when using CPU unlocks.
Any way to determine “time to safe mode unavailable“ except for calculating based on those numbers?
I would love to have a stable way of retrieving that number without updating my code with each balance patch 
@o4kapuk so the Core will reserve an adjacent room regardless of having an exit there?
I am concerned about special kinds of remote mines I am using: if a room has just one exit, you can use it as a remote from the exit room and don't need to build walls between the two, because there is no way any threat could appear in the enclosed room.
Do you intend to make such rooms unsafe? As in: can they be magically reserved?
How would the reservation of rooms work? Would the stronghold magically reserve controllers in adjacent rooms? Or would claim creeps appear to do that?
Not sure if I would like the magic way, since it seems to not allow locally defending my remotes. I have to attack the stronghold.
Basically I would like Screeps complexity scale out using a small set of base mechanics (caravans do that well).
I just noticed that spawnCreep (as opposed to createCreep) does not automatically assign a name to created creeps anymore.
I think this is an unneccessary complication for new players, which should not use a deprecated method like createCreep, should they?
Was there a particular reason to leave that behaviour out? The pull request does not at all mention this change, I discovered it by chance after seeing that my spawning code does not work after changing to the new method signature.
In case you want to keep the behaviour as is: The documentation of return values should be updated. Currently it only points at an errorneous creep body, but not at a missing name.
I just noticed that spawnCreep (as opposed to createCreep) does not automatically assign a name to created creeps anymore.
I think this is an unneccessary complication for new players, which should not use a deprecated method like createCreep, should they?
Was there a particular reason to leave that behaviour out? The pull request does not at all mention this change, I discovered it by chance after seeing that my spawning code does not work after changing to the new method signature.
In case you want to keep the behaviour as is: The documentation of return values should be updated. Currently it only points at an errorneous creep body, but not at a missing name.
edit: Reposted that comment on the changelog entry for the real world instead of PTR: https://screeps.com/forum/topic/1951/changelog-2017-09-28/7