Conscript's DPS in the new patch.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said.

My apologies then, I understood that you claimed that DPS at range 10 remained relevantly the same.

This on the other hand is just silly, you've massively buffed conscripts at 10 and below, yet you say you've done the opposite. Which is it?

EDIT: Here's a 10 hours in mspaint graph of what the conscript dps change actual does (with nagants). Lower blue line is old and upper one is new, and red dotted line is likewise while moving.

The idea was to give Conscripts a slight boost at the 10-25 range. However, if your graph is accurate, then our numbers are wrong, and we should adjust them.

Relative DPS at range 0 should be lower for newer conscripts (by a negligible amount)

At range 10, accuracy for old conscripts was:
0.5226 (unless I miscalculated something)

The accuracy for new conscripts at range 10 is:
0.7182821

So, yeah. At range 10 there indeed is a 3.3% DPS increase, which is on par with the accuracy bulletin. I wouldn't call that "massively" buffed, though.

The idea was to give Conscripts a slight boost at the 10-25 range. However, if your graph is accurate, then our numbers are wrong, and we should adjust them.

Changing near range to anything above 0 will result in a flat curve from 0 until that range.

Wait, Vipper says in her opening post that

"new mosin around x100% (range 0) x136% (range 10) x108% (range 20) x110% (range 30)"

There's a massive difference between a 100% to 136% buff and the considerably lower values that Cruzz and Smith present here. I thought that a DPS buff above 100% was exaggerated, and clearly not a representative of what it feels to me in game. But it seems more in line now with the values presented above.

Changing near range to anything above 0 will result in a flat curve from 0 until that range.

Yeah, but accuracy was also adjusted. We always meant to buff accuracy at close range by a small amount (iirc 5%) to allow the relative Kar98 and Mosin DPS curves to finally make sense when you compare the one relative to another.

The original intended values for Conscripts, that we had been testing for months were:
- Damage from 16 to 10
- Accuracy changed from 0.541/0.495/0.334 to 0.9086803/0.7918258/0.6678531

However that made Conscripts look silly since they would always hit. It would also cause issues where vetted conscripts wouldn't do so well vs unvetted infantry (due to accuracy capping).

When I transposed the values from a 10-damage mosin to a 12-damage model, I saw that vetted G43 grenadiers were getting murdered at all ranges by vetted Conscripts. Therefore, I thought it was wise to limit 0-10 damage. If you transpose revamp stats to patch stats, relative DPS at ranges 0-10 is lower than Revamp stats.

PS: What I am disputing is the relative difference in DPS at range 10, not the fact that the DPS remains flat between ranges 0 and 10. The figure looks misleading (though I understand it's meant to show the shape, rather than precise values).

Changing near range to anything above 0 will result in a flat curve from 0 until that range.

That is actually good because CQC weapons will get a better relative advantage vs bolt action the closer they get.

On the other the near point of some of these weapon should be move closer to 0 to increase the effect.

Yeah, but accuracy was also adjusted. We always meant to buff accuracy at close range by a small amount (iirc 5%) to allow the relative Kar98 and Mosin DPS curves to finally make sense when you compare the one relative to another.

PS: What I am disputing is the relative difference in DPS at range 10, not the fact that the DPS remains flat between ranges 0 and 10. The figure looks misleading (though I understand it's meant to show the shape, rather than precise values).

You're only adjusting for accuracy, but your near range change is also improving conscript aim time and cooldown times.

The graph should be perfectly accurate in terms of calculated DPS. Many weapons have very silly dps at ranges 0-2, but you effectively never can get into that range in the game except with one model and purely by chance. When you make that dps available at realistic ranges like 10, you get silly results.

You're only adjusting for accuracy, but your near range change is also improving conscript aim time and cooldown times.

That was unintended. We'll fix that. thx.

Yeah, but accuracy was also adjusted. We always meant to buff accuracy at close range by a small amount (iirc 5%) to allow the relative Kar98 and Mosin DPS curves to finally make sense when you compare the one relative to another.

The original intended values for Conscripts, that we had been testing for months were:
- Damage from 16 to 10
- Accuracy changed from 0.541/0.495/0.334 to 0.9086803/0.7918258/0.6678531

However that made Conscripts look silly since they would always hit. It would also cause issues where vetted conscripts wouldn't do so well vs unvetted infantry (due to accuracy capping).

When I transposed the values from a 10-damage mosin to a 12-damage model, I saw that vetted G43 grenadiers were getting murdered at all ranges by vetted Conscripts. Therefore, I thought it was wise to limit 0-10 damage. If you transpose revamp stats to patch stats, relative DPS at ranges 0-10 is lower than Revamp stats.

PS: What I am disputing is the relative difference in DPS at range 10, not the fact that the DPS remains flat between ranges 0 and 10. The figure looks misleading (though I understand it's meant to show the shape, rather than precise values).

Why not leave the DPS largely the same (very small consistency boost) but make Cons build faster, with cheaper reinforce at vet 3 while keeping the faster molo throw and at/molo package?

This way you wont disturb the rather good balance between gren and con... its not like Soviets dont have many other options...

Why not leave the DPS largely the same (very small consistency boost) but make Cons build faster, with cheaper reinforce at vet 3 while keeping the faster molo throw and at/molo package?

This way you wont disturb the rather good balance between gren and con... its not like Soviets dont have many other options...

One could start by changing size to 1 and making merge more appealing.

One could start by changing size to 1 and making merge more appealing.

Good lord I wish merge didn't just wipe conscripts. If it merged down to 1 man it'd be so much more useful. Cons regardless of their dps would synergize better with every soviet unit.

Anyway I find the con changes makes them much better against units in cover and worse against units in red cover.

It's kind of a passive overall buff to the fact they can create their own green cover. 240 mp for a 6 man squad of eating axis dps is, and has always been, their greatest strength.

Why not leave the DPS largely the same (very small consistency boost) but make Cons build faster, with cheaper reinforce at vet 3 while keeping the faster molo throw and at/molo package?

This way you wont disturb the rather good balance between gren and con... its not like Soviets dont have many other options...

You can't really buy Conscripts back in the lategame if you lose them. They don't have upgrades to buy from Vet0, and they will still bleed a ton until they get to Vet3.

Apart from the DPS curve debacle that Cruzz pointed out, the major wins for conscripts in this patch is that they won't get completely bled dry at max range, and that they will hit harder at approaching troops, making them more valuable as a late-game defense unit.

The consistency gains will also make it so that replacement conscripts in the late-game will be able to stick out behind sandbags and do something.

The counter-problem is that they have way too much RA currently at Vet3, and you can't really gun down ppsh conscripts while they rush you. That's also fixed by shifting Conscript veterancy more into accuracy than received accuracy.

With the changes, vetted Conscripts become on-par with vetted upgraded infantry, and there's always a range where each squad can outbleed the other. Conscripts have the disadvantage that they don't have unique abilities that can cause wipes and so on; but they will be good attrition infantry.

After we've fixed the DPS curve for Conscripts, the only fix we'll have to do is adjust where the mid-range should be. (i.e., at what range should the enagagement flip from Conscripts losing to Conscripts winning)/

Invissed some off-topic posts.

You can't really buy Conscripts back in the lategame if you lose them. They don't have upgrades to buy from Vet0, and they will still bleed a ton until they get to Vet3.

Which is exactly the same about grenadiers.

Apart from the DPS curve debacle that Cruzz pointed out, the major wins for conscripts in this patch is that they won't get completely bled dry at max range, and that they will hit harder at approaching troops, making them more valuable as a late-game defense unit.

Unfortunately I have to comment
Show Spoiler
The changes made make the DPS curve linear which is bad because it reduces the effects of "relative positioning"

The consistency gains will also make it so that replacement conscripts in the late-game will be able to stick out behind sandbags and do something.

The counter-problem is that they have way too much RA currently at Vet3, and you can't really gun down ppsh conscripts while they rush you. That's also fixed by shifting Conscript veterancy more into accuracy than received accuracy.

With the changes, vetted Conscripts become on-par with vetted upgraded infantry, and there's always a range where each squad can outbleed the other. Conscripts have the disadvantage that they don't have unique abilities that can cause wipes and so on; but they will be good attrition infantry.

After we've fixed the DPS curve for Conscripts, the only fix we'll have to do is adjust where the mid-range should be. (i.e., at what range should the enagagement flip from Conscripts losing to Conscripts winning)/

Since Soviet tech is versatile and not high why should vetted Conscripts be on-par with "vetted upgraded infantry" which are more expensive ( weapon upgrade) and have more cost tech.

conscripts should have to pay similar tech->global upgrades, which could also solve the problem of replacing conscripts.

Which is exactly the same about grenadiers.

No it's not. LMG42 still deals a respectable amount of damage. Also, rifle grenade still deals the same damage at Vet0 as it does at Vet3. Conscripts don't even have a grenade that can cause wipes.

Unfortunately I have to comment
Show Spoiler

All of you deserve credit for bringing this to light.

The changes made make the DPS curve linear which is bad because it reduces the effects of "relative positioning"

Linear DPS isn't a problem per se for relative positioning. In fact even flat DPS isn't a problem per se.

Fallschirmjagers have a very flat DPS curve. However, you'd never want to use them to fight Tommies at max range, and you'd never want them to fight Shocks at close range.

Problems with relative positioning only start occuring when DPS curves of opposing units become identical. That's because it takes two to tango.

I have no knowledge about CoH2 prehistory. However, my best guess from the changelog archives is that they used to have identical curves for all rifle weapons, which made relative positioning pointless.

Since Soviet tech is versatile and not high why should vetted Conscripts be on-par with "vetted upgraded infantry" which are more expensive ( weapon upgrade) and have more cost tech.

That's because upgraded infantry pay the munitions costs once during the lifetime of the game and they get good mileage out of their weapons. Conscripts trickle munitions off steadily throughout the game. Our goal is to have both types of performance enhancements (upgrades and temporary buffs) on par with each other.

conscripts should have to pay similar tech->global upgrades, which could also solve the problem of replacing conscripts.

Global upgrades would definitely work if Conscripts would get a BAR-like DPS curve out of that tech (as opposed to ppsh, which is a downgrade for defense purposes). Nevertheless, global upgrades are and have always been a foreign body to CoH2. We won't have the time to properly evaluate the late-game consequences of global upgrades properly.

Conscripts are an important part of the patch, but they're far from being the only focus.

You can't really buy Conscripts back in the lategame if you lose them. They don't have upgrades to buy from Vet0, and they will still bleed a ton until they get to Vet3.

Apart from the DPS curve debacle that Cruzz pointed out, the major wins for conscripts in this patch is that they won't get completely bled dry at max range, and that they will hit harder at approaching troops, making them more valuable as a late-game defense unit.

The consistency gains will also make it so that replacement conscripts in the late-game will be able to stick out behind sandbags and do something.

The counter-problem is that they have way too much RA currently at Vet3, and you can't really gun down ppsh conscripts while they rush you. That's also fixed by shifting Conscript veterancy more into accuracy than received accuracy.

With the changes, vetted Conscripts become on-par with vetted upgraded infantry, and there's always a range where each squad can outbleed the other. Conscripts have the disadvantage that they don't have unique abilities that can cause wipes and so on; but they will be good attrition infantry.

After we've fixed the DPS curve for Conscripts, the only fix we'll have to do is adjust where the mid-range should be. (i.e., at what range should the enagagement flip from Conscripts losing to Conscripts winning)/

If i may be so bold;

Grens cost the same to build, but more to reinforce, they get the rifle nade and the faust, they also get the med kit and can build bunkers. They are a 4 man squad.

In Con-trast (sorry) Cost the same, less to reinforce, they get the molo and AT nade, they get merge (arguably better than the med kit) and they can build sandbags, while also getting 6 man squads.

At this point Grens and cons are somewhat on par, balanced but not the same. The difference comes from the MG42 which makes Grens better, but also costs 60 muni.

By making Cons compete pretty well vs Grens with an LMG you risk making grens just as useless in the late game as cons are now.

And that buying back cons late game being fruitless argument does run true, but for all factions as well. Vet 0 rifles are total trash vs vet 5 cons etc etc. Why should cons be different?

I worry that with doctrines that give manpower free Cons, or give cons PPSH's or PTRS's or simply by allowing a player to gain significant map control with cons alone, you reopen the can of worms we closed before; that of light vehicle rushs that leads OST players into picking mobile assault 90% of the time because they cant compete in the early game.

Hopefully you can fix the problem earlier, and i can play some more and see how it plays out, but preliminary thoughts of my are mostly that a simple dps/combat buff throws so many other balance points out of whack. A more creative solution may been a better option. Alternatively allow them to upgrade 3 or so SVT rifles at some point, so they have to pay muni to be good as well...

For all this balancing around dps, I'd love to know how field presence and capping power are being quantified.

Because, you know, coh2 is a game of holding territory.

good job vipper for this topic. you help to improve the game when making serious posts!

No it's not. LMG42 still deals a respectable amount of damage. Also, rifle grenade still deals the same damage at Vet0 as it does at Vet3. Conscripts don't even have a grenade that can cause wipes.

The amount the damage the LMG does to vet 3 conscripts is far less than what it does to vet 0 conscripts, while the performance of vet 0 lgm grenadier vs (vet 3 lmg) Tommies or Riflemen is laughable.

All of you deserve credit for bringing this to light.

Thank you.

Linear DPS isn't a problem per se for relative positioning. In fact even flat DPS isn't a problem per se.

Fallschirmjagers have a very flat DPS curve. However, you'd never want to use them to fight Tommies at max range, and you'd never want them to fight Shocks at close range.

It not a problem but it reduces the effect of one can achieve far bigger benefits from using curves and not lines. There are 4 point to make weapon curve available and one should take advantage of all of them instead of just 2.

Problems with relative positioning only start occuring when DPS curves of opposing units become identical. That's because it takes two to tango.

I have no knowledge about CoH2 prehistory. However, my best guess from the changelog archives is that they used to have identical curves for all rifle weapons, which made relative positioning pointless.

You can find the graph of the weapon changes here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/4307/company-of-heroes-2-changelog/page/2
if you need more info I can sent you old DPS files.

About Tango
Show Spoiler

That's because upgraded infantry pay the munitions costs once during the lifetime of the game and they get good mileage out of their weapons. Conscripts trickle munitions off steadily throughout the game. Our goal is to have both types of performance enhancements (upgrades and temporary buffs) on par with each other.

That is probably a bad idea. Weapon upgrades are spend resources (that can die with unit it has been invested in) while temporary buffs are sitting in bank and one has the choice either to use grenades or an off map of instance.

Conscripts are an important part of the patch, but they're far from being the only focus.

Think this is one of cases of fix or don't touch it, because even the smaller miscalculation can easily lead to snowball affects.

For all this balancing around dps, I'd love to know how field presence and capping power are being quantified.

Because, you know, coh2 is a game of holding territory.

Its impossible to quantify, that's why these changes need to be battle tested with as many good players as possible.

The DPS is only a small part of the story, it's also about how fast a player can get these units on the field, how likely he is to win fights with them (gaining map with those fights) and the associated costs on using the unit, ie upgrades to make them effective, how much they bleed, and how much they inhibit the next phase of tech.

Cons straight to a T-70 used to be a very common strat, which i think may be possible again with a relatively small fighting ability upgrade.