@conn332 Check your CPU assignments on the https://screeps.com/a/#!/shards screen to make sure these are sane. check your Game.cpu.limit also alongside cpu used.
Otherwise it sounds like you should send in a support ticket, your bucket should grow up to 10000 if you do not use all of your CPU.
Any chance we can get an option to disable display of decorations? It's such a cacophony of colors or otherwise poorly contrasted it hurts function. To each their own really but please don't force me to look at this, my eyes hurt!
I would recommend respawning elsewhere. Dealing with towers without boosts can be pretty rough. I would focus on the remote harvesting code over offensive code this early. With the code you have now getting to RCL4 again will be much quicker.
My suggestion would be to configure shards in a 'king of the hill' or pyramid like shape where the higher up shards offer some advantage over the lower shards (higher volume power banks, resources, increased GCL gain per energy spend, etc). This would create incentive for newcomers, or anyone really, to climb up to higher shards in turn making space for newly arrived. For everyone this would create new dynamics and potentially less of a stalemate as happens currently.
@artch Just curious why are creep haulers not a solution? Perhaps with some buffs to carry, uhm store, size. Increase battery to energy ratio, etc. Increase carry boost percentages.If the warp containers are going to sit somewhere in between, why would anyone use them? They will end up like tunnels barely getting any use due to being so expensive and CPU heavy. Needing to work with resource convoys or as an enemy trying to intercept them would add much more interesting dimensions to a siege then a 'pipe' system you can pummel anywhere at any time.
How this does not classify as "breaking" I do not understand... This will pretty much break everyone's market and resource balancing code and on top of that potentially obsolete everyone's hard worked remote harvesting system. There is still so much for me to work on, I do not appreciate having to fully revisit something I have nailed fairly well.
I enjoy seeing as many screeps moving about as possible, I rather see less teleporting, not more. Teleporting removes geostrategic gameplay and removes logistics which is otherwise super important in warfare.
Just disable the terminal entirely when hostile creeps are in the room (or similar to 'safe mode' create a 'siege mode') and force logistics on the defender side to try and supply the room.. with haulers. Very common with sieges throughout history.
No repairs with hostile creeps in room could work also forcing the defender to leave the ramparts and try clear the room.
@artch said in Dev update 2020-03-08: new account resources:
Totally. But the game administration is not involved here, it's player-to-player interaction. Benefits (credits) are not created from thin air, they're legitimately obtained in game.
I don't agree with this reasoning. I drew my wallet and gained a competitive advantage; "administration" as you call it has made this possible by selling me a voucher I can convert to in-game credits. It's OK, it's pretty marginal currently, I am not objecting to the system, it is what it is though.
Selling CPU more granular would align directly with server hosting cost, anyhow it was just a suggestion, overcharged small players are probably paying for my large CPU footprint as a lifetime sub. I was just curious how this 24 hour thing would be beneficial for players. I think it's to be found mostly on the token trading side of things.
I like to keep real money out of my gaming experience, I am just of a different opinion. Fact remains that, independent of their granularity, the selling of tokens for credits allows you to do some significant padding to your resource income on top of what you could otherwise produce yourself. While I do not think this is currently a big issue, it is there. My suggestion doesn't change anything here, I don't really understand Arch's response.
@mrfaul Sorry I am not sure what you are trying to say here except that EVE is also pay to win? I surely would not lose interest in Screeps if there were no tokens. I have enjoyed playing poker in the past just fine with fake money, by just keeping score.
@artch Sorry perhaps my use of the word max CPU is confusing. I do not mean people should be able to go outside 300 CPU or whatever their GCL allows. I was only suggesting you could pick something in the middle between 20 and and your max potential. Say someone has a potential 120 CPU (from GCL) based on a long running 20 CPU colony, if they buy a token they can't suddenly use this extra 100 CPU effectively especially if it's short term. If you'd sell volumes of CPU he could choose to use it for say an extra 10 cpu for 240 hours instead of 24 hours. Otherwise you'd sell him 100 where he'd only be able to squeeze out 10.
@artch It's still very much pay to win, changing the token duration doesn't fix that. As long as they are a tradable commodity I can sell tokens to gain an resource advantage through market purchases. While competing for GCL it's quite easy to spot when some players have had their pay day.
I think this will only add more friction for potential token buyers. A 24 hour period makes no sense for players, either you chain them continuous or you don't buy at all. Billing server cost over a 2 month period vs 24 hours is still the same money.
Drop it to say a month and it doesn't force peeps to write very boring API based checks. Chunks of 24 hour CPU aren't useful. Perhaps being able to buy a selectable max CPU augmentation for a selectable time frame is, making it more of a 'bucket' that you buy allowing you to throttle it in as fast as a player desires and/or is able to effectively use.
To summarize, yes the stock private server sucks, it just spirals down to horrible performance relatively quickly. You may have more luck with a private server running the mongodb storage engine, although for me personally those always tend to flake out before being able to grown an interesting environment to test in. I pretty much gave up, I just dev on 'production' 
@artch said in Draft: Seasonal server:
This can be a content event like "go there, do that, fight with this thing, gather that thing and gain season score points". It will last during the entire season and will be unique for every season. This will be the primary metric for generating the leaderboard; common GCL and GPL metrics will be either removed or made secondary.
I think racing others over GCL, GPL or a combination could be pretty fun, I would definitely not appreciate it being removed. It also flies well with seeing how existing bots, in it's current state, perform relative to others. To be honest I still have many things to implement on the game as is, getting yet more stuff to program for seasonal content doesn't sound all that attractive to me, especially if it would just be temporary code for just that one season. I will probably not bother at all in that case and focus on stuff that has continued value and use.
As a side note I think for the regular servers it could be nice to have more forms of ranking/achievements also. Perhaps work on the seasonal game could bring some things over to the regular servers.
To confirm, as you suspected, RoomPosition.look() also doesn't mention Ruins, need to use lookFor(). Since tombstones do show up it's reasonable to expect ruins also...
SKs already being marginally beneficial for energy everyone is probably better of just dropping them altogether until you can effectively tackle and loot strongholds. With the reduced invasions the energy actually becomes more efficient, and stronghold loot is probably selling better then looted boosts from invaders.
@artch Aha thank you, I shall observe that. I thought it was just wiping the (my) reservation on arrival.
@artch continued reservation of a controller owned by a lesser core will end up removing it? I don't understand what you mean by overdo?
@smokeman Ah you mean a rebate for the server, sure. Either way we are encouraged enough to spend 100% as is yes.