Posts made by Jip

I think a hint like this is a great idea.

I've updated this topic with scripts that I commonly use during the development of maps. This includes:

• Batch resizing (drag and drop any folder / file)
• Batch appending (drag and drop any folder / file)
• Batch composing (drag and drop two folders: one with RGB images, another with greyscale images. Greyscale images become the alpha channel of the RGB images. Tad harder to use with drag and drop - first click greyscale folder, then click rgb folder)
• Batch converting to DDS (drag and drop any folder / file)
• Batch converting to TIF (drag and drop any folder / file)

See the original post for a link to the repository. You need a bash shell and Image Magick installed in order to use these scripts. More information later on how I use these scripts in my own workflow.

Thank you! I liked Madness 2 in the past - another keeper!

Highway to Hell - great suggestion! If you happen to know a good replay or two along with a timestamp then that is appreciated.

I'm not joining in on the discussion on whether the strat is too strong. But I feel that your proposed solution is not compatible with what players expect from the game. Almost any explosion / AOE is either a full hit or no hit. Making an additional exception for bombers is not desirable in my opinion.

An alternative could be that the strat doesn't drop one, but four or more bombs. Similar to the T2 Cybran fighter / bomber - but with more AOE and damage. That way the target in the center will (typically) receive full damage, where as targets on the outer edges will receive less damage. And it will all match with the expectations of the player.

Yes they can be. There are two approaches:

• Start a game with just yourself and maybe an AI or two. This is essentially skirmish mode, except that you can not restart as easily.
• Start the FAF executable directly. You can find this at: C:\ProgramData\FAForever\bin. This will launch the game as you would from Steam, but with all the patches that FAF provides. From there on you can choose skirmish.

If you do not see the maps you downloaded from the vault in your map list (after joining your game, try and select a different map. You can search for maps in the search bar at the top of the map list) then make de-install and re-install them. If that doesn't help then we can try and help you further. But it should just work.

Looking it over - it appears he makes the files himself right below the section that you quoted. This is not a guide I was familiar with - if you can't find the solution then it is best to ask in the discord and ping the veteran modders

Could you link the guide?

There are support factories and HQ factories. Support factories are significantly cheaper than HQ factories, have the same production ratings but they are weaker in defense. You need to have a T2 HQ in order to make a T2 support factory. Once you have an HQ of a given tech, an engineer of that same tech or higher can right away build a support factory

You could try Blackops, or Marlo's Mod pack !

There will be likely at the very least two more posts:

• remind people of the fact that they can vote in the near future
• remind people of the fact that they can vote on the day of the vote

And I agree that they should be objective with nothing attached.

edit: and a third one would be the results, as you mention.

I have no opinion on the tournaments but I do want to ask a few questions with regard to making funds available for people surrounding tournaments, such as a Tournament Director (TD).

I understand it is an idea from a pool of ideas e.g. it may not even be selected at all. But I do think the idea has merit, I just do not entirely agree with how it is applied.

Say we do stick with making funds available for them. This would involve spending money. I think this is something the association should decide on whether they find this desirable. As, if I understood correct, they in the end determine how the funds of the association are spent. @Sheeo could you shed light on this?

One clear issue is when a TD is underage. Giving money to underage people is not something FAF should be doing in my opinion.

As Robustness mentions, I think a TD should not do this for the funds that originate from FAF. Just as much as a map maker should not make maps and then be paid by FAF. I'm just not interested in more drama - this may just be another source. On the other hand, if an individual makes a request and pays someone to be TD or does a commission of some sort then that is fine, as the funds do not originate from FAF itself.

My suggestion instead of providing funds directly to the TD are the following:

• Give the TD the option to spent the funds on another FAF event. As an example with completely no bias at all: they could add the funds to the prize pool of a map tournament.
• Give the TD after doing X tournaments some 3D print that FAF sends to them as a thank you token, as a complete alternative to receiving funds. The largest cost factor here is package costs - printing these days is pretty cheap.

And last but certainly not least - I think the comment of askaholic is more a joke than a serious answer, but I feel it shows an issue. Will the next creative councillor make funds available for Mod makers? And will the next games councillor make funds available for people that work on the git issues? There are too few mod makers and people that work with the githubs. The precedent this sets is a bit scary, especially because it is part of an election promise. And I don't think making funds available for certain tasks should be part of such a promise. But - I think in general a (phyisical) reward system for long-term contributors would be greatly appreciated - something physical to have on your desk.

It has been removed - reload the news tab.

@randomwheelchair That is why I wanted to clarify the exact post Tatsu was referring to

@tatsu What post is that exactly? Could you link it?

edit: on topic, I agree with the OP that just as the previous one should not be in the news, neither should this one be.

@thewheelie Yes there is:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1cK0XIgCsU

On topic: a veto system would be quite interesting!

I think the idea has merit, but it also means that you can have 3K ladder rating because you are really good at 5x5 maps, but if you take it on with someone on a 20x20 map you maybe couldn't beat a 1k ladder player that is really good at those (but don't get to play that often - apparently)

In a similar situation: custom games have true skill rating too. Someone can be 2K at setons, but if they play on any other map then they'd be 1.4K or lower instead. But they still have 2k rating because they only play setons. This entails that because of having the choice on what you want to play, the rating doesn't actually mean that much anymore and you need to 'know the person'. This is why there are game names with 'unless you're a known setoner' - or similar for any other common map.

That is why ladder is ladder - you take a random distribution of the pool and players (that are roughly equal) and by doing so it averages out: therefore the true skill rating means a lot more. Introducing this concept would negate that, which you acknowledge in your post at the end .

You could send them towards a google forms (or a more open source alternative) instead - not sure if that is a solution to the hard part