There are three types of "good architectural choices"
The first: The ones that can be made after the original, bad ones. The second draft, which is an improvement in the first draft, in every field.
The second: His (or her) own. We all know there are developers out there who think they're the greatest thing to ever write code, and that everyone else's decisions are bad.
The third: The ones that really should have been made, in place of the ones that really shouldn't have been made. As in, "You wrote your own SQL parser using hardcoded strings and no grammar parsers?"
You've probably heard it as ones that lead to low-coupling and high-cohesion, which is correct. But in my experience this needs to be made more concrete -- many people can say these words, but couldn't tell you accurately to what degree a system was cohesive and uncoupled.
My understanding of the perspective of the authorities on encryption in messaging is that it doesn't matter what you say, it matters who you say it to and when; additionally, it matters whether you're speaking cryptically or not.
That's the second time in this discussion that you've proposed paying money for an advantage over others in this not-even-released game. May I ask why you're so eager to win at this particular game?
Why? Why not just let this be an educational and fun game? Why ruin the spirit of it by turning it into an opportunity for something to exploit (yes, I know, that word has very negative connotations) for profit?
So selling game scripts so others can advance faster? Or perhaps getting ready to harvest resources to sell them later? Or something completely different?
What? I hope you're being ironic, because if you're not you seriously don't understand the point of bot-based strategy games: https://www.battlecode.org/info/
Having one person being able to pay for more cycles is the textbook definition of unfair : it restricts the non-paying player to a subset of optimized searches, while the paying player can ultimately get an edge because of his additional compute.
Pay-to-win is also usually an artifact of gameplay that isn't fun, but requires long stretches of time (ie 'the grind') to complete. Considering the video and the fact that your minions carry on their instructions even when you are logged out, I'm not sure there is a traditional grind component in play here?
Also, people are assuming a black market of scripts will develop just as it does for gear, etc. gear is different because the frequency table is fixed -- therefore the competitive landscape is fixed. When everyone can have 'nukes' the winning strategy is no longer 'nukes', it's who can sneak through defenses and disable the nukes, or confuse them.
Kauffman calls this constant evolution into the 'adjacent possible' -- and if Screeps even half delivers that kind of depth, there won't be a stable end state to the game where everyone has one master script. Changing environments necessitate changing response. You are part of the environment. Feedback and permutation!! Yes!!!
This would be an amazing way to indulge my programming fascination while also honoring my financial commitment to stick with efforts that could make a direct $MM impact on P&L. Wait, I can program and do that? Where do I sign up?
Hi, devs! Feature request: that you can play the game without having to enter code; that you can actually point and drag and click. I hope that "You can master basics without knowing JavaScript" means that there is a traditional RTS style mousey interface
It doesn't have to be all one or the other. It would be neat to be able to guide individuals or small groups while allowing the bulk of your forces to do their own thing.
SEEKING WORK in Manhattan, USA; remote work is a possibility, and I am available for travel.
I am an expert in user acquisition, retention, and revenue optimization strategy and techniques for elite teams with at least $2mm in the bank. I guarantee results and I work on a performance basis only. Call me and we can discuss whether we're a good fit: +1 (917) 754-7298.
