Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request: Remove minimum resource amount for StructureTerminal.send() #78

Closed
jim-hart opened this issue Feb 15, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Comments

@jim-hart
Copy link

While its not a huge problem, being unable to send a resources in amounts of less than 100 can be a hassle. With multiple rooms producing multiple resources, its easy to accumulate small amounts of intermediary products. The same is true for minerals used to boost creeps; its easy to exhaust your supply of a certain boost, but still have around 10-20 minerals remaining.

While a single room experiencing this issue can be easily rectified, as the number of owned rooms increases, it becomes less manageable. Small resource pockets of a specific type scattered across enough rooms can add up to the hundreds, if not thousands. As it stands, the only way to transfer resources in amounts of less than 100 through a terminal is by creating a buy order and having the target room purchase it (or just outright selling the resource to get rid of it).

.send() already incurs the standard energy cost and cooldown, so I don't feel the 100 unit threshold should be added to that. While not restricting market transactions to this threshold makes sense, its still worth pointing out you can buy and sell in 1 unit increments.

While I don't foresee something like this being useful continuously, managing logistics would be more manageable if you didn't have to factor in resource counts when trying to consolidate a single resource type across multiple rooms.

@bastianh
Copy link
Contributor

the bugtracker is not the place to discuss changes to the game .. you should post that in the forums: https://screeps.com/forum/

@jim-hart
Copy link
Author

@bastianh I checked the issue tracker before submitting this; I saw similar posts; like this for example, and didn't see any complaints. Would you still like me to close it?

@artch
Copy link
Contributor

artch commented Feb 16, 2018

#64 was related to changes in a specific pull request here. General feature requests are better discussed on forums since they have more to do with the game itself rather than its open source engine.

@jim-hart
Copy link
Author

@artch Its not a problem; I've already closed the issue. I'll keep issues like this to the forums; take care.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants