Navigation

    forum

    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    1. Home
    2. o4kapuk
    3. Topics
    • Flag Profile
    • block_user
    • Profile
    • Following
    • Followers
    • Topics
    • Posts
    • Groups
    • Blog

    Topics created by o4kapuk

    • Season #7 announcement
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      2
      2
      Posts
      5582
      Views

      @o4kapuk said in Season #7 announcement: Upper areas are teeming with resources, while the lower areas present a more challenging landscape So this seems to be ~2/3rds 2 source rooms up top, vs ~1/3rd on the bottom. Does this include score spawning more at the top, less at the bottom? Does score choose a room, then a spot in the room? Or does it choose a spot from non-wall spots? That is, does a room with more walls get the same or less score than a room with fewer walls?
    • Season #6
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      4
      4
      Posts
      7408
      Views

      Hi all! Any idea how many access keys would be required to jump in now?
    • Important Community Update Regarding Recent Events
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      4
      4
      Posts
      5719
      Views

      @joeduncan Is there historical data for that anywhere?
    • Season #5 is open!
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      8
      8
      Posts
      10832
      Views

      @fungouscoast245, the season has already started. Thorium in rooms: const densityProbability = { 1: 0.1, 2: 0.5, 3: 0.9, 4: 1.0 }; const mineralDensity = { 1: 10000, 2: 22000, 3: 45000, 4: 67000 };
    • Season #4 is open!
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      8
      8
      Posts
      14841
      Views

      @hailhydra The season 4 is over. Season 5 is to be announced later.
    • Changelog 2021-07-28
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      1
      1
      Posts
      6177
      Views

      No one has replied

    • Season #3 is open!
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      1
      1
      Posts
      5543
      Views

      No one has replied

    • Season #2 is open!
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      5
      5
      Posts
      9178
      Views

      @tigga they should be there currently. @eiskalt Just like all obstacles do.
    • Changelog 2021-01-25
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      1
      1
      Posts
      4187
      Views

      No one has replied

    • Temporary tick rate slowdown
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      2
      2
      Posts
      4314
      Views

      successfully recover all shards of all servers at a cost of slower ticks Like the sound of this.
    • Discussion: long-range logistics revamp
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      81
      81
      Posts
      141670
      Views

      I agree that terminals throughput and reach make them very powerful, and that potentially overshadows other logistic options in the game (creep transporters) or potential new designs such as Warp Containers. If the key design objective here is to avoid short interrupts of terminal disruption being catastrophic for attackers, what about the following change to PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL which makes sieged terminals more expensive to use while reducing the catastrophic effect of the effect dropping: PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL no longer blocks withdrawals, but now imposes a loss at the time of withdrawal: 30%/50%/60%/70%/80% depending on the level of the power. E.g. level 1 disrupt means that I try and withdraw 1000 energy, 1000 energy is removed from the terminal, but 700 energy is added to my creep. PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL now uses a new expiry mechanic: level reduction. Instead of the effect dissipating after X ticks, the effect reduces a level and the cooldown is reset back to X ticks. The effect only expires when the level would reach 0. This means the effect is less binary, and fades out over time. So if you apply level 5 power, after X ticks it drops to level 4, then after another X ticks it drops to level 3 and so in. The effect can be reapplied by the attacker at a higher level, without waiting for it to tick all the way down to level 0. the cooldown of PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL is increased to 100 ticks, and the ops cost adjusted accordingly. Making the effect longer is not a big problem as the effect is no longer a complete lockout of the terminal, but leaves a defender the option to spend their way through the effect... until they run out of money. PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL affects the contents of a ruin formed from the terminal (destroying the terminal and rebuilding thus remains an option for the defender, but potentially an expensive one). The effect of these three changes is: level 5 disrupt terminal is a lot stronger than level 1, but level 1 is still useful. Currently I think there's no reason to go beyond level 1. defender now has a choice to make - do I withdraw these Tier3 boosts now knowing that I'm paying a fortune to boost this creep, do I wait and hope that the level will drop off in the future, or do I not boost this creep in this base? The current power design leaves the defender has no choice but to wait and hope. Allowing the defender a choice makes the situation more interesting for the defender to reason about, and the optimal choice may be different for different players, bots, situations. if the attacker's disruption is interrupted, there is a much larger grace period before it becomes catastrophic for the attacker. Instead of the effect dropping off after 10 ticks, the effect continues for hundreds of ticks, albeit with decreasing power. The overall effect is to make disrupt terminal more flexible and powerful for the attacker (although this is dependent on the exact loss percentages). The attacker also is able to trade off the cost in ops vs the withdrawal cost for the defender. Perhaps the economic decision for the attacker is to apply level 5 disrupt terminal, and wait for it to drop to level 3 disrupt terminal before reapplying level 5 again. The decision-making for the attacker is slightly more interesting than reapplying on expiry. The economic balance between attacking and defending is tilted away from the defender. It's still possible to flood resources into a sieged base from elsewhere, however it becomes much more expensive for the defender to make use of those resources. PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL becomes not just "wreck their defence", but "wreck their economy and their defence". Perfect application of the existing power would be stronger at wrecking their defence than this proposal, but an imperfect application neither wrecks their defence nor their economy. This proposal means that even a failed attack could be costly for the defender (potentially 5x as costly as at present). What's good about this proposal? It narrowly focuses on the specific issue with PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL, and doesn't change other parts of the game. More decisions for attackers and defenders to make. Puts a greater distance between PWR_DISRUPT_SPAWN and PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL. Currently, both interfere with base defence by blocking a crucial structure, aiming to make spawning defender creeps impossible. With this change, the choice is between blocking defenders spawning, and making defenders very expensive. The outcome is no longer identical (assuming perfect attacker logic). What's bad about this proposal? It narrowly focuses on the specific issue with PWR_DISRUPT_TERMINAL, and doesn't address the strength of terminals in general (but maybe that's ok). Introduces a new effect expiry mechanic that doesn't exist on other effects which might make the behaviour harder to understand. doesn't tie in with the mineral compression mechanic (unlike the terminal rate limit under discussion)
    • Changelog 2020-03-24
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      5
      5
      Posts
      8973
      Views

      Tried again and it is working now!
    • PTR Changelog 2020-02-21
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      1
      1
      Posts
      3125
      Views

      No one has replied

    • PTR Changelog 2019-12-21
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      10
      10
      Posts
      11913
      Views

      @demawi Thanks for the report, I'll take a look
    • Dev update 2018-09-05
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      1
      1
      Posts
      2880
      Views

      No one has replied

    • Dev update 2018-10-30
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      1
      1
      Posts
      2568
      Views

      No one has replied

    • Dev update 2019-08-08
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      1
      1
      Posts
      3989
      Views

      No one has replied

    • Draft: factories and commodities (new crafting/trading mechanic)
      News & Announcements • • o4kapuk

      82
      82
      Posts
      220463
      Views

      Maybe market system changes should be discussed in a separate threat. I'm also not a friend of order fees and I'm more a friend of transaction fees, but it would be too offtopic to deepen this topic now. The current changes show what we'll expect but there is still something missing: The regional commodities need different resources, so their production cost varies a lot between different regions. What will be the market prices for these commodities? How much ops will OPERATE_FACTORY need for which effect duration? ( I know proposed is 100 ops for 1000 ticks, but they are "still considering other timings too" )