So, a while back when I did my first map, I checked out the "How-to-minimap" guides and created the 4 files accordingly (well, the mm.tga which also was used as mm_preview.tga and mm_high.tga and the scaled mm_low.tga) and encountered no problem whatsoever.
Now, I tried to repeat this for a few other maps last week, but the in-game minimap ended up being scaled incorrectly (the map is too small both in the full-screen mode as well as when plotted in the corner). What did work, however, was only having the mm.tga and deleting the high, preview and low versions.
Was there a recent change, or am I just making a stupid mistake?
The major #1 design flaw of Conscripts is their Mosin Nagant DPS curve. This curve is completely nonsensical given the DPS curves of the weapons Conscripts have to face.
Care to elaborate? I made some calculations (based on the DPS calculator in your signature) and did some simplistic simulations.
You mentioned in the other thread that the best distance for Cons is 25 meters. While that's accurate, the curve relative to the Gren and VG one is basically flat to 25 meters before dropping off quickly; yes, strictly the cons loose a tiny bit in relative DPS when they are closer, but the difference is so small that it probably doesn't matter at all for practical purposes. No idea if it is possible to achieve a flatter line unless you want to use more than three digits for the accuracy values.
In my simplistic simulations, it turns out the Cons should win on average up until 25 meters (in my simulations with 2 models left, regardless of the distance, but they won quicker the closer the fight happened).
With your new damage and accuracies (assuming that I plugged them in in the correct parts), the relative DPS indeed increases the closer the cons get. However, while the increase is somewhat more pronounced that the decrease was before, it still is pretty small. The main difference is that the relative DPS doesn't drop off as steeply beyond 25 meters.
In my simulations this barely made any difference up to 25 meters (the cons still won with 2 models left, albeit maybe 2 seconds faster than before (we are talking about 5% faster, again not sure if that makes a difference in practical terms). Beyond 25 meters, the grens still won like they did before, only that now the fight took significantly longer (because gren models dropped earlier, reducing the gren squad dps faster), so that probably is noticeable.
Again, my simulation was pretty simplistic, you probably have more in-depth ones. Do those give you similar results, and if not, how do they differ?
TL;DR:: Certainly, the new damage/accuracy combination makes cons more consistent. Further, the new values indeed remove the tiny maximum in relative DPS at 25m and replace it with a slightly less tiny increase towards shorter offsets. However, I'd say this hardly makes any difference in practical terms. What probably does make a difference is the less steep drop beyond 25 meters.
So, what is it exactly that you think is non-sensical?
There are a lot of complaints about conscript performance and the fact that they are currently not in the scope for the fall balance patch. That patch, however, does contain changes to other units that might effect the usage of conscripts, so it might not be a bad thing that we can see how things pan out before actually changing conscripts directly.
I'd like to know in what direction you would change them from a design perspective in potentially upcoming patches (if at all). Note, this is less about balance, but more about what your vision for conscripts is.
Let's start with a brief recent history of the conscripts (including stats from GCS):
The current iteration of the FBP buffs the Maxim back to be somewhat more reliable, nerfs the Penals and requires the AT upgrade for AT satchels, which all might help conscripts back into the spotlight.
I'd say it is also clear that the Molotov needs a buff as that one was not very popular even back when conscripts were. Common complaints are that the wind-up is too long, and maybe the tech could be merged with AT grenades.
The question is if those measures will make conscripts more popular again. Several people think that that is not the case. So, common proposals are that the conscripts should be able to receive a weapon upgrade, or to overall buff the combat stats.
I would like to propose a different approach, which would be more in-line with what I think what the original design idea for the Soviets and would help to keep the factions diverse.
Almost all Soviet commanders contain either some form of elite infantry or auxiliaries or a weapon upgrades for the conscripts (which results in the ability overlap of several commanders). And these typically kick in around the time when other factions unlock their weapon upgrades of elite infantry. On the other hand conscripts have a lot of utility: Apart from Molotovs and AT nades, they can build sandbags, flank with Oorah! and merge.
My interpretation of this is that conscripts are supposed to be either upgraded at some point, or relegated more into a supporting role when elite infantry enters the field and maybe even phased out to some extent.
The obvious drawback of that is that you would invest MP in something that potentially gets increasingly less effective as the game drags on.
Now, my suggestion is more along the lines of making cons more MP efficient by reducing their costs. This can happen by one or multiple of the following measures (the numbers are merely placeholders):
Reduce the price to 220 MP, which inherently will reduce the reinforcement cost to 18 MP (down from 20).
(if possible) set the squad unkeep to -1 for a total of 5 upkeep for a full squad.
Reduce reinforcement time
Maybe add a reduction of reinforcement costs to vet3.
Conscripts are a 6-man squad. Therefore they can't cost any less than 6 popcap, unless we start bending the rules. [...]
Then, for spam-oriented Conscripts to work, we'd have to reduce the cost of their abilities, and think about how much to reduce the cost of their upgrades.
Finally, once these would be done we would have to figure out a solution for the PPSh, to make it not OP with cheaper cons abilities and lower reinforcement cost. That would be very difficult to solve, since PPSh is a short-range weapon, and short-ranged weapons suck at defense; and that's what you built the cheap Cons-truppen for, right?
Thanks for the response, but I was thinking about something less radical. The idea is not that one should spam more cons, but that cons should be slightly more MP efficient and are back on the field faster.
Ok, maybe lower the cost to 220 (which would bring down reinforcement to 18 per model, right?). If possible, use a -1 squad pop, so the full 6 man squad would have a total of 5. Reduce the reinforcement (and potentially build) time to - say - 80% of what it currently is. Reduce throw time of Molotov slightly and maybe merge Molotov and AT grenades. This shouldn't change the early game dynamic only slightly and also the relative performance of squads remains, but in the long run it should help the SOV saving MP.
I doubt this would make Soviets much like Ostheer with Osttruppen, given that the latter are more long-range oriented and don't have the utility of the Cons. And no, I don't think that cons are necessarily defensive troops. Uhm, I guess I better start another thread, rather than derailing this one...
Just to throw this out, what about changing brace so that it lasts - say - 1:30 or even 2 minutes, so that brace has the serious downside of rendering the emplacement useless for a considerable amount of time?
Regarding the Conscripts: Ok, one goal for the changes in the revamp was to make them more consistent. However, the changes do also improve their performance (slighty?), right? Did you consider instead to change them more towards Osttruppen, i.e. making them cheaper/take less popcap/cheaper and faster to reinforce?
It isn't pointless, but necessary. For example, if you think the elefant is live game is OP, then post a automatch replay to prove it. Otherwise it's an skill/IQ isssue and not a blance one.
How can you prove stuff like this with a replay? Like, what would be the metric that you use for the OPness of a unit?
The unit doesn't exist in a vacuum. Regardless of how the replay would look like, you could always argue that the opponents didn't chose the proper counters or failed miserably at execution. Further, a certain unit might be totally OP in one, very specific situation and underwhelming in others.
You could probably evaluate the strength of a unit if you statistically sift through tons of replays. Alas, we don't have those, at least not for 3v3 and 4v4 (the GSC replays allow some insight into what top players currently believe to be the most efficient units in 1v1).
So, the requirement for replays simply will result in nothing being done at all.
Let's face it, several of the changes are not strictly about nerfing OP units or buffing UP ones, but rather about making certain playstyles more or less viable. And people will always disagree to some extent about how the game should play out, so this is subjective to a serious extent and you won't get everybody on board 100%, regardless of what is proposed...
I don't think the "not matter" part is entirely true.
...and I also doubt that the second part is true. As the quote from Cuddletronic in the linked post indicates, matches are made irrespective of the map veto.
Besides, the two parts of the sentence kind of contradict each other, no?
so the projectile disappearing bug? or shooting faust as bldg bug?
the latter has always been possible if i am not mistaken.
Actually, it's weird and probably at least unintended behavior on three levels:
First, that Panzerfaust targeted the garrison. I was not aware that this was possible. Does it do anything? Might not qualify as bug, but it's likely not intended...
Then, the Panzerfaust missing the target; in all suggestions that I read so far on how to reproduce the bug, some sort of movement of the target was involved. Here, everything was static.
Why did the AI decide to fire a Panzerfaust in the first place (which probably wouldn't have done anything anyways), instead of throwing a grenade?
Of course, a unreproducible, hear-say bugreport is kind of pointless, but I thought it was weird enough to post anyways...
Assuming you click on a point where multiple splats or splines overlap, but you only want to get one of them:
You can repeatedly click on point to cycle through the selection. For splats, the currently selected splat it light red, the others (semi selected?) dark red. For splines, the selected one shows the perpendicular connections (in particular those at both ends) while the others do not.
Assuming you have 3 splines: 1st click: Everything selected; 2nd click: Only spline 1 selected; 3rd click: only spline 2 selected; 4th click: only spline 3 selected. 5th click: Everything selected.
Occasionally, it tends to skip a certain item for some reason (seems to happen mostly for splats, though).
Alternatively (and useful when you want to move a certain group of e.g. splats/splines that overlaps with another group):
You can add items to your selection by holding SHIFT. You can also use that to deselect a subgroup.
So, how this typically works out: Click at one point, and the program selects all splats at that point, including some that you are not interested in. Now, hold shift and click away from that point where only the unwanted splats are. If there are no other splines there, it will simply deselect the unwanted splats. If there are other splats there, at first click they will be added to your selection. If that happens, you'd have to SHIFT click the same point again, and all unwanted splines are deselected.
Germany
0
Brosras {C}
Thanatos
Thanatos
QuentinCOH2
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
