mirror of
https://github.com/Bubberstation/Bubberstation.git
synced 2026-01-09 00:13:55 +00:00
bc2b49f0a5
* Refactors abstract traitor objectives to be more abstract and enforces this by using unit tests. Rebalances some traitor objectives (#73777) ## About The Pull Request In this PR, some of the traitor objectives are rebalanced to be more consistent with scaling risk. Abstract traitor objectives have had their telecrystal reward and progression rewards moved to their non-abstract types and it's now enforced that abstract objectives should not have these values set. Additionally, it's encouraged that people don't set progression_minimum on abstract types either, but I can see the usecase in doing so with final objectives and assassinate objectives. This is why it's fine to set progression_minimum on an abstract type as long as any of the derivatives of that abstract type do not redefine the progression minimum to avoid consistency errors when tweaking progression minimum values. Setting the progression minimum on an abstract type means that all derivatives of that abstract type should be unlocked at roughly the same time. ## Why It's Good For The Game The rebalances are so that same risk objectives of different types are worth around the same amount. Repeatables should roughly award the same amount of TC when it comes to comparing the risk, but the progression rewards can vary. The new standard enforcement on abstract traitor objectives is more so for robustness and ease of balance, as it's easier to lose consistency when rebalancing values between two objectives, because one of the objectives derive their rewards from an abstract type. Generally speaking, rewards from objectives of different risk level should not be the same and it's easier to enforce this if developers have to explicitly declare the rewards of the objectives they add. This doesn't mean each objective has to declare explicitly what their reward is. Derivatives that subtype off of non-abstract types can still copy the rewards from their parent. The progression minimum is fine to be set on abstract objectives as long as derivatives don't change the progression minimum. If they do, then it's better for consistency to declare the progression minimum on each type rather than the abstract type so that higher-tier objectives don't accidentally end up with a lower progression minimum when it comes to rebalancing. Of course, this isn't a set rule on, but it's something I'm going to try and enforce, when it makes sense, going forward, even if it may increase the number of lines of code each traitor objective file may have. Maintainability and robustness beat optimization. ## Changelog 🆑 code: Abstract types don't hold telecrystal rewards or progression rewards anymore, this has been moved to the non-abstract types. balance: Rebalances rewards from repeatable traitor objectives to be more consistent with each other. /🆑 --------- Co-authored-by: Watermelon914 <3052169-Watermelon914@ users.noreply.gitlab.com> * Refactors abstract traitor objectives to be more abstract and enforces this by using unit tests. Rebalances some traitor objectives --------- Co-authored-by: Watermelon914 <37270891+Watermelon914@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Watermelon914 <3052169-Watermelon914@ users.noreply.gitlab.com>