Yeah, the decorations aren't too bad, but the background layers can be made to really obscure what's going in a room. I'm not a huge fan of those.

@zortea said in On the defensive power of strongholds:

Just to document, this strategy doesn't work anymore as of June 2020. The creeps will raise the ramparts to the equivalent damage of the nukes. Maybe its possible to overwhelm the repair power with like 6 nukes but I didn't try.

They always did. I don't see anything in the souce to suggest this has changed recently.

https://screeps.com/a/#!/room/shard1/E47N51

You can make terrain walls and constructed walls look exactly the same...

Many ideas that revolve around the attacker building structures or having a 100% presence in the room that's being attacked just fail to people building walls/ramparts as close as possible to the edge of the room. If we want long term seige weapons they have to be from adjacent rooms.

The rooms concept of screeps lets it down in this regard. A continuous landscape with maximum ranges rather than "in-room" would be more satisfying from this perspective, though obviously a lot more complex in other regards.

https://github.com/screeps/driver/blob/4f37b9c4fdb79523f6e78ff8bdd4862fe3abf100/lib/runtime/make.js#L214

if(!runResult.activeForeignSegment.id && user.defaultPublicSegment) {

Will only work if user.defaultPublicSegment is non-zero.

Docs say it can be 0-99 https://docs.screeps.com/api/#RawMemory.setDefaultPublicSegment

A creep can use 4 work parts to get one energy/tick while dismantling, or 1 work part for two energ/tick harvesting a source.

Dismantling is not really worth while from an energy perspective.

There is a private server mod which, if installed, allows this. You name your first spawn "auto" and instead of placing it it just claims the controller and the first spawn construction site placed is auto-completed.

@o4kapuk said in Discussion: long-range logistics revamp:

@Tigga thanks, your calculations do match mine primarily. How much you spend on haulers currently?

320 energy/tick for 156 sources right now.

Now, in your assumptions, do you count transfer intent? Even for 15+ WORK harvesters (harvests in 1/3 of ticks) if could worth 0.9 energy/tick per source.

Yeah, I did. With 20W+8C you're doing 0.05 CPU/tick for harvest and 0.025 CPU/tick for transfer, which is where the 0.15 comes from.

We can activate warp containers by 300 ticks for 300 energy, so saving on activation won't be possible.

Sounds good. With all these things there's a balance between giving opportunities for smart code and forcing people down a given path I guess. Syncing stuff to reduce this upkeep would be smart code, but also maybe the "only way". Doesn't make a huge difference to my above estimates anyway.

Really the "issue" seems to be that the majority of CPU in remoting goes into haulers - about 65% in my case. Remove this and you require 3x less CPU. Tying upkeep to harvest intents just leads to fat harvesters (which aren't a bad idea anyway for CPU).

I'd also like to point out I'm doing the naive calculations. It's possible I want to put the warp containers further from the source and use high carry/low move haulers (eg. 20C/5M) to move from harvester to warp container. That'd be low CPU and might be cheaper than warp container decay.

I think if you give me 1 CPU I can get ~13 energy profit (as of right now, it varies). This is based on predicted income - cost and adjusted for measured income - cost. The difference is usually pretty small.

Put in a lot of sums and that works out as ~12 WORK/creep for maximum profit. 7 extra work costs me ~0.6 energy/tick and saves me ~0.12 CPU/tick, so you can see it kinda works out. The marginal cost on adding an extra 2xWORK, 1xMOVE is ~0.17 energy/tick, ~0.012 CPU/tick saved, so not worth doing at 13 energy/CPU (but would be at 15 energy/CPU). This assumes spawn time is not a consideration which is generally true either on shard 3, or at high GCL.

Assuming this code doesn't have bugs (obviously not a certainty) I think it's reasonable to expect people to have at least 10 work/harvester in remote rooms, halving peak decay to 2.5 energy/tick. Going to 15 work/harvester would cost ~0.4 energy/tick/harvester, and save ~0.8 energy/tick on the warp container, so I'm pretty sure that given I'm already nearly there that's a no-brainer. Going to 20 starts to hit diminishing returns (0.4 energy/tick for larger harvester, ~0.4 saved on the warp container) so stopping at 20 is probably reasonable.

Now with 20 harvest/tick I don't actually need the warp network online all the time. Exactly how the "online" method works isn't clear. Seems like 1 energy/tick while online for the whole room. I probably only need it online 1/3 of the time as I can clear a source in under 100 ticks, saving ~0.67 energy/tick.

So we're getting to the stage where a 3 warp container room with spread sources will cost 1.5 energy/tick (container maintainance) + 0.33 energy/tick (activation cost) + 2.5 energy/tick (harvest intent decay) + 3.6 energy/tick (harvesters). That comes to ~8 energy/tick and ~0.15 CPU/tick for two sources throw in a reserver, road maintainance and other random intents and maybe we can call it 10 energy/tick and 0.2 CPU/tick. This blows my current energy/CPU out of the water - I can get ~4x the energy per CPU spent if I use 3 warp containers/room naively.

@o4kapuk said in Discussion: long-range logistics revamp:

Math.min(0, 11 - range)

I assume that's meant to be max?

I guess it's also per-intent? I feel this cost is likely to be lower than it first appears in practise. We already see oversized harvesters to save CPU. Right now for me on MMO my code thinks the sweet spot is around 14 WORK, though that number goes up and down depending on factors. Call it 15 WORK, and now I'm paying a third of the cost than I would be if I had 5 WORK. From 5 energy/tick at 1 range to 1.666 energy/tick. Couple that with the fact I only need charged containers for 1/3 of the ticks, and things are getting pretty cheap agian.