Reactivity and Assorted Changes #11245
Conversation
readSync() line isn't needed, Overdrive should not make the cooldown go faster, it stays as is unless there is a good argument against it.
Updated arc and lancer descriptions. Added setBars() stuff for clearness.
now depositCooldown and is now on a per turret basis if needed... will potentially need further iteration
added an internal gamerule (long name, need to reduce it later) to enable the balance (oriented for pvp) depositCooldown = 0 by def added depositCooldown entries in Blocks.java
…d arc/lancer sprite Thinking if I should set the sprites to be white, then use Color.gray...
Made coolant and overdrive effects not get chopped off from Math.min when its too high
|
After some reevaluation... yeah a counterbalance may be needed for the fix? Still thinking about it... I was hoping a counterbalance really isn't needed (i don't wanna do the dps adjustments since I'm busy), but it may be necessary sigh |
Also implemented the code for TractorBeamTurret thanks to the code changes Parallax can have the feature if needed for future balancing. Hopefully nothing was screwed up in the transition...
|
Okay... made it now on the BaseTurret Level (all turrets have access to the variable), and with some changes, parallax can have the thing as well... (with a sprite and a simple stat change) I won't put it on the Block level though (even if shockmines may need something like it, it would have its own implementation prob) I don't think it's useful for a graphite press or a wall to have an "activation time". Hmm got me thinking, I wonder if its compatible with any part progress moving the turret parts around... hmm... |
|
Please anuke it will be a blessing for pvp |
The changes in this PR do not provide any benefits to PvP at all, especially when the enemy deploys a T4 crawler unit to sneak past your defenses but cannot use the Lancer. The same applies to naval units. The Lancer, which uses electricity as ammunition, is designed for quick response. I believe this change is not ideal and may require alternative methods (for nerfs). Perhaps the Lancer doesn’t need to be nerfed at all—what should be nerfed is the elemental reaction. @SomeonesShade |
You do realize the tech difference between an Arkyid (Phase Tech) and Lancers (Titanium) right? The main issue is that reactivity is currently unbalancable via stat changes. Ground Units is the concern here, T1, T2 and T3 Ground gets specifically hard countered by reactive mechanics because lancer/arc only target ground. Also, any stat styled nerfs is out of scope for this pr, it's been rushed outside of Project MIA since the changes should be compatible with any balancing framework... |
I believe the fatal weakness of the Lancer (i.e., why it performs so poorly in PvE) is its excessively long charging time, which leads to ineffective targeting. Until this issue is addressed, the Lancer can only be used in PvP for quickly eliminating ground units. Additionally, if the goal is to make the Lancer more balanced, why not adjust its cost (which I think is a great idea)? It takes at least 20+ Lancers to kill a T4 unit, and appropriately increasing its cost (for example, by raising the titanium or silicon required to build it) could effectively limit its abuse—if a player can afford it, then they should be able to defend against enemy units even if they do not have the capability to produce T4 units. This, in turn, leads to the discussion of whether same-level turrets should necessarily be stronger than units, a point I largely agree with (same-level turrets should indeed be stronger). @SomeonesShade |
Lancer's charging time is fine if its does more to counteract it's weakness (i.e. remove the pierce cap it has to have more effective dps at the cost of being more positional), the problem is real the but the solution can vary as always... I'm not against cost nerfs, or any other idea you could think of that buffs or nerfs with (buffing damage, power nerfs, water-coolant buffs), etc. etc. Since... We could go on and on here on how lancer should perform relative to other turrets (Inter-Turret Balancing); the general Turret to Unit Power and how much of a lean is healthy respective of tech level etc. (Unit-Turret Balancing); and of course, how reactivity, pre-planted defenses, the current map, and current economic strategy influences when each turret or unit comes into play (Tempo Analysis). However... My goal isn't to balance Lancer stat wise with this pr (check out Blackberry's Pr in that case), I'm trying to enable future balance prs to nerf or buff reactive mechanics as much as they can because I don't want lancer or arc to be the go-to options for T1, T2 and T3 rushes respectively if I try to buff its survival capability. If I buff Lancer more in the DPS spectrum, Reactive Lancer may become more nuts. If I Nerf Lancer's Cost, Hail, Salvo, or Ripple might become better options for pre-placed defenses. Rather than do the headache of navigating through the awfully small sub-space of "balanced lancers", I would instead propose future balance to.
Do you see how much easier to balance a turret under this framework? Stuff that future balancers and players can easily adjust without compromise nor controversy? The purpose of this pr is to allow this balancing strategy to take place. Well, you could incorporate cost nerfs but they don't have to be extreme to be effective. (High Activation Time with Small Cost Nerf vs Low Activation Time with High Cost Nerf, well to begin with you already "nerfed" the cost in the Inter-Turret Stage, so make the Activation Timer fit the current cost.) This would probably be my last reply in a while, I'm curently busy. @DeterMination-Wind |
3 participants
Serpulo Balancing: Unit-Turret w/ Reactivity
Updated: September 28, 2025
Summary of Changes
Rationale
Caveats and Disclaimers
Needed Feedback
Stuff I need to answer or ask... I may answer these on my own, but these reflect the current thoughts I have on my mind regarding this pr...
Activation Time
[Status: Ready to Merge]
Deposit Cooldown
[Status: Main Mechanics done... Completion and Polishing remains]
Reload Fix
[Status: Determining what to do next]
Proof of Function
Footage of Reactivity (from jehosula)
Defenses are placed reactively and not preemptively. This can be problematic as the turret and unit dyanmics of upfront cost is no longer at play.
lancer_qr_4_-_Made_with_Clipchamp.mp4
Activation Time
20250927-1607-01.7696473.mp4
Yes, they don't shoot if inactive
20250927-1609-59.6456908.mp4
No Block Status
20250927-1612-18.4203752.mp4
Stat Screens
Deposit Cooldown on an Enabled Map
20250927-1604-35.0508466.mp4
Coolant Fix
(quick runs of data... since the difference is high (60fps footage))
Top has coolant and overdome (expected value is 5.875x)
Before
After
Post Dev Notes
If your pull request is not translation or serverlist-related, read the list of requirements below and check each box: