It's actually 1.0. It's also the minimum.

https://github.com/screeps/engine/blob/f745904e856f8b6648642dbfc509a96044a5e147/src/game/rooms.js#L18

https://github.com/screeps/driver/blob/ecb3f12e20e120ea9845e00c385367e4fc704354/lib/path-finder.js#L92

@camenni said in Hostile 'tunnel' construction-sites can't be removed:

FIND_MY_CONSTRUCTION_SITES won't work on roads though

Are you sure? I've not checked, but I'd expect it to work.

@wtfrank said in Make trading subscription tokens more profitable for everyone:

You can't even pay to win. Unless you buy a top-tier code-base off someone...

I agree and I disagree. I think is you're able to develop a reasonably good codebase on your own you can get to the top of the GCL/power rankings much more easily if you're willing to sell sub tokens to buy energy/power. Similarly, a reasonably good codebase can much more aggressive with boost usage as those boosts can just be bought from the market.

Now, the market isn't huge so token prices are high. The more it gets used the lower the prices will be I guess. I personally see it as a bad thing rather than a good thing and I don't want more ways in which players can turn money into in-game advantages.

Personally, I'm fine with the 5% market tax. It takes credits out of the game and stops inflatation.

@conquest said in Please redesign the goal of markets:

Looking at something like Catalyzed lemergium Acid, there is buy orders for 0.153 credits, and sell orders for 0.599 credits...Cool, so how much does it cost to make Catalyzed lemergium Acid? It takes one X mineral, one L mineral, two H minerals, and one O mineral. X is selling for 0.078, L for 0.03, H for 0.062, and O for 0.021...which comes to 0.191...clearly this is not profitable

Firstly, Catalyzed lemergium Acid isn't the most traded boost as it's not very useful compared to others. Look at other boosts and you'll see more trading. Shard 1 is quite a peaceful shard as I understand it. It has bursts of violence but the majority of the shard is one alliance, so you don't get much need for buying combat boosts.

Secondly, you say the price is 0.192 and therefore it's not profitable to sell. In fact, the price is somewhere between 0.153 (I guess this changed since you posted) and 0.599. If you were to place a sell order at 0.4 it may get filled. If so, clearly it could be profitable. Sure, the 5% tax means you only get 0.38 of that 0.4, but that's not a huge loss. Historically the price has been 0.291-0.360.... again profitable.

IMO We should have fewr sub tokens around rather than more. Pay-to-win ain't fun.

@mrfaul said in Quality of life improvements, that should be done with the re-branding.:

The idea behind the offer/handshake method is to allow the building of trade routes.

Trade routes would be interesting if the world wasn't uniform. The world is uniform. You're imagining a new game. Terminals work and you get them early enough.

I feel like that the game is a total grind up to at least RCL 6 and that really hurts the recruitment of new players if it isn't engaging enough.

I'm not sure this is true. The progression for new players is quite fast and it's not like you have nothing to do. You can start work on remote mining pretty much instantly (along with anti-invader code). Reserving starts properly at RCL 4, RCL 5 has GCL 2 which is a big step, RCL 6 has terminal and basic labs, 7 has real labs, and 8 has nukers/observers.

There's a lot to do and no "grind" much at all. It's all active work early game. It's late game that lacks content unless you go fighting.

Huh. I should get a Roomba and paint it in the colours of my badge...

In principle I agree, though I wouldn't consider it the most important change in the world. I think it would be marginally better, but wither that's worth the overhead of making a change I don't know.

I think it would be useful to have more practical examples where it's 2 or 3 vs 1.

Day 1 experience is very important so shouldn't be at all confusing (if possible... it is screeps). Worth bearing in mind.

The message could still be claim a room and after you claim it could go to "place a spawn". An automated code could hijack the spawn placement message. Manual players could just place it.

One thing that seems quite counter-intuative about this design is that pulled creeps' movement parts only decrease fatigue on that pulled creep. It seems like it'd be more intuative for the fatigue transfer to be reduced by any fatigue reduction past zero on the pulled creep.