Which shard is affected?
All shards

What happened?
Related: https://screeps.com/forum/topic/2285/after-intershard-travelling-placed-on-a-portal

A creep was placed on an active portal to shard 3 after moving through a shard1->2 portal.

What should have happened?
Creep should be placed in open space.

How can we reproduce this?

Have a large number creeps navigate to another shard. This other shard needs to have two close portals.

It is possible to see me attempting this at https://screeps.com/a/#!/history/shard2/E10N30?t=10111162

You can see my creeps making it to shard 3 here: https://screeps.com/a/#!/history/shard3/E10N40?t=20560

@shibdib The cool-down doesn't effect boosting. I take advantage of that in my own unboosting.

Ultimately it's 'free' minerals if you can code around the limitations. In particular most lab setups have two labs that never act as a target for reactions that can be used as well.

Does such a dis/advantage need smoothing out?

I am strongly against basing anything around holding onto a room long term for the simple fact that it can be quite crippling to hold onto a room that you simply don't need.

I'm also not convinced a survival leader-board is all that informative and feel it might even be counterproductive. New shard opened up? Boxed in by the next dissi? Too bad you have a 3 year survival high score!

@tigga So that a player that is still working out how to even farm power can be kicked over without hope of counter by a player who has had a chance to figure out how to get at creeps that can literally cripple (or in extreme cases, shut down) a room?

This has to be opt in.

@wtfrank said in Warfare Ranking:

I don't understand how this capped at 0 thing would work to avoid abuse. If everyone starts at 0, and no-one can be sent below 0,

As an example: Everyone starts with (assuming killing a rooms is worth at most 1000 points) GCL*500 + 10% of their ranking last month. Done; Players not actively participating are only worth a fraction of their empire (but can't opt out entirely) while those who participate are on the hit list for the others that do participate.

finding someone who doesn't care about the ranking

I'm sure they will care about you coming and kicking over their rooms though.

or finding zombies to mess with.

You can only kill a zombie once.

"damage to structures and creeps in controlled rooms"

does not always correlate damage done to an empire (just energy spent) while RCL damage is directly correlated to wasted potential due to less spawns, less labs and yes, energy spent on that RCL.

And it would be simple to track and well correlated with military combat.

Do we want to track throwing stones ineffectually at one another or do we want to track murder? Anybody can throw a few creeps at a room. I want a warfare ranking to measure as close as possible the damage done to another players empire. Not energy, not creeps, not structures empire

You can't truly hurt an empire by killing a few creeps. You hurt an empire by razing a room to the ground while optionally signing their controller with profanities.

@atavus said in Warfare Ranking:

4. To avoid abuse, the awarded points will be subtracted from the defender (capped at 0)

This also rewards the defender in a round about way since they don't lose points. While rewarding defence is a good idea I feel that other ways to reward defence are going to be problematic for one reason or another. I especially like it because the highest ranked players will effectively have a bounty on their heads while also making the ranking dramatically more dynamic (want to be on top as #2? attack #1!)

In any case subtracting points seems like a good means to prevent abuse / weaker players being hunted. It does make me think that this ranking shouldn't be entirely monthly either but have a partial carry over from the previous month.

That said there is a potential for abuse for this scheme: unclaiming a controller when the walls fall so as to not lose points. The question is will it be worth it to give up a (for example) RCL 8 room (and the energy cost to upgrade it) that easily?

Finally a key point for why I lean towards a more complicated 'key structures destroyed' system along with 'driven to rcl 0' rather than anything based on attackController() is because it
a) often isn't practical to get a short lived claim creep to where it needs to be.
b) encourages/measures making it as hard to stand a room up again as possible; this is war not a slap fight.

Room to RCL0 - Which player got the killing flow on the storage etc.? Or even the most damage to player structures? (This also means 'ownership' of a kill could change hands if a a second player worked to keep a room flattened)

Controlling reserved rooms (without mining) isn't particularly related to economy at all unless you need to hold them militarily. But honestly holding an empty room isn't worth the effort or the CPU.

Reservation counts also works majorly against alliances who's members tend to be shoulder-to-shoulder a lot of the time (relative to the amount a player has reach to reserve/sign) and doesn't account for war-games at all. On the other hand it also majorly works for alliances that can afford to bully and diplomance players out for the space too.

Imagine all of YP muscling everyone off of shard1 just to reserve (but not make use of) all of that extra space. Its an awful vision, and not just because i'm on shard1.

The nail in the coffin for the reservation idea for me is that it doesn't even measure military strength in any meaningful capacity outside of the ability to pick your targets carefully. Respawn in an area with a lot of new players and push them all out. Suddenly you're #1 on the scoreboard for the foreseeable future with little extra military investment.

Maybe that's too extreme, maybe all players end up with the same amount of reservations per claimed room... but that makes it even worse as a counter when we have GCL & rooms claimed statistics already.

You wouldn't have to create a formal concept alliances; it could be as simple as two players (The 'owner' and the player set to receive the buff) touching the flag and calling the same method.

The point is that if an alliance gets a flag and only one player can benefit from a flag at a time there is going to be some serious problems arising from a possible perceived shared ownership of that flag.

My problem is that number of reserved rooms is not direct measure of military might and does not directly encourage or measure player conflict; it is merely a measure of expansion which is already inherent to other metrics. I'm also not sure if convincing people to have larger footprints (without making use of the rooms) is such a good idea.

Or that it's even worth the 0.2 cpu across many, many rooms for players above GCL 30 who have massive CPU constraints already. Mind I probably shouldn't speak for them. But even for me i'd much rather dump that CPU into another couple of remotes and do that much better at a more useful GCL/Power ranking.

There are a lot of mechanics that have been proposed elsewhere that could perform the function of encouraging player conflict and many could also be used to measure a warfare rank. eg. duel claimed controllers, flags, etc..

It's also possible to simplify the rules I proposed to 'number of rooms driven to RCL 0' ('Rooms destroyed') . Everything else is to deal with problems that for all I know might not actually be problems.

Room kill attributation can be done via attackController() or, better yet, who did the most damage to nonrampart player structures within the room. Yes, it could be complicated if multiple players attack the same room... but is it really a war at that point? Does that even happen that often? (Most alliances will attack multiple rooms rather than all piling into the same one)

In any case I agree attributation is quite a complicated issue.