40 replies to this topic

[Zolaz]

If you are going to totally redo the module system and I have over 50 million c-bills invested in modules I would like to have all my modules refunded. That would at least help with having spent all those c-bills and time and then having those modules sit around and gather dust. I dont see why PGI sees the need to punish people who have been playing the game.

[Torgun]

I agree that's what they should do, but then again this is also part of the CBill sink, so I seriously doubt they're going to do it.

[Innocent]

I think the reason behind this is to get more people using consumables. now there will be no negative to taking consumables since it will not force you to skip on something else. Artillery/airstrike for all, yay...

[DYSEQTA]

It seems a reasonable request. All online RPGs I've played have given full stat resets every time they make massive changes to key build elements.

Before you say "But MWO isn't an MMORPG!!!", in this respect it sort of is. Customizing mechs is similar to customizing a character build.

[Sandpit]

DYSEQTA, on 12 July 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

It seems a reasonable request. All online RPGs I've played have given full stat resets every time they make massive changes to key build elements.

Before you say "But MWO isn't an MMORPG!!!", in this respect it sort of is. Customizing mechs is similar to customizing a character build.

I agree but I don't know if pgi will

[Scratx]

Well... on the one hand that would be a nice move. On the other hand, I'm not sure the module system revision is actually going to negatively impact existing modules that much. Mastery module slot aside, if we keep the same number of slots per mech that we already had for the general mech modules, then there's no reset-justifying change.

Remember, we're actually going to have a lot more module slots to play with at the end.



Edit : And after reviewing the vlog, considering that weapon modules are hilariously bad... refunding the mech modules may very well be called for if the average mech can only have one mech slot.

Honestly, if mastery gave a mech module slot it would be a far lesser problem... but useless weapon module slots, lolwhat.

Edited by Scratx, 12 July 2014 - 07:32 AM.

[Kanigit]

I saw nothing that indicates the modules are even changing, merely how you slot them into your ride. Really, if this is gonna be what kicks off your 'refund now' rant you need to take a deep breath.

That being said, when the camo and paint schemes were reworked a full refund for all that users had spent on camo and paint was issued (both MC and c-bills). I remember this well, as I was suddenly flush with MC and cbills

So, before you get bent out of shape just remember that they have issued refunds before when the system changes significantly. This particular change, the module slots, does not qualify as such imo.

[Bryan Ekman]

No promises yet, but I will review this with the team and see what/if anything makes sense based on the design change. i agree with the thought in principle, if we make radical changes that alter the experience, we should offer a solution. We have done this in the past several times.

[Varik Ronain]

Bryan Ekman, on 12 July 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

No promises yet, but I will review this with the team and see what/if anything makes sense based on the design change. i agree with the thought in principle, if we make radical changes that alter the experience, we should offer a solution. We have done this in the past several times.

Thank you Bryan, I hope that PGI will release more info on this so we can be better prepared.. so many community events are going on now with the new private matches.

I am also curious to see where enhanced narc ends up... weapon module or mega critical module slot... I am hoping weapon as it only effects weapons and really only works with narc. The supposed benefits of it with ppc or tag do not even seem to work.

Edited by Varik Ronain, 12 July 2014 - 07:32 AM.

[Ngamok]

I hope all the Heavy and Assault mechs get hit with the 1 mech module thing, hehe. They should focus on weapon and consumable anyways. On the other hand, I hope all the lights get 3 mech modules.

[Prezimonto]

Thank you Bryan.

I think it's safe to say that may of us would like to see this happen.

Ngamok, on 12 July 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

I hope all the Heavy and Assault mechs get hit with the 1 mech module thing, hehe. They should focus on weapon and consumable anyways. On the other hand, I hope all the lights get 3 mech modules.

I would say most lights, not all. The Jenners and Firestarters could mostly get 1 mech module and I wouldn't complain.

[Wintersdark]

I do hope they get refunded.

If you've investing 18m in 3 modules for a build, and suddenly you can only use 1 of them, that leaves a 12m investment hanging.

Given that's the cost of a whole mech, that's very significant.

Hell, of multiple mechs in some cases.

[LauLiao]

Scratx, on 12 July 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Honestly, if mastery gave a mech module slot it would be a far lesser problem... but useless weapon module slots, lolwhat.

Why not make the mastery module slot a "Universal" slot so you can put any kind of module you like in there? It will at least make it feel a little more "endgame"y.

[The Blood God]

LauLiao, on 12 July 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Why not make the mastery module slot a "Universal" slot so you can put any kind of module you like in there? It will at least make it feel a little more "endgame"y.

i like it,

[Ultimax]

Bryan Ekman, on 12 July 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

No promises yet, but I will review this with the team and see what/if anything makes sense based on the design change. i agree with the thought in principle, if we make radical changes that alter the experience, we should offer a solution. We have done this in the past several times.

I think we all appreciate you looking into it, but I think part of that should be a re-evaluation of the overall module changes.

If you give me 2 + 1 (mastery) weapon module slots, I am not going to use them.

The weapon modules as they are currently implemented are quite frankly terrible. They have little/low/no value for most builds.

I do not want, nor need +5m of range on a weapon for the cost of even more heat, when heat is already a constant bottle neck for damage output.


I'm not sure if the team felt we weren't using the weapon mods because we lacked the space for them, but even if no other modules of any type existed I would not want to slot these. This needs to be either re-vamped or re-thought.


What I do want is all of the options to customize my build through the use of the passive modules - that's why I was willing to grind out the cbills and the XP to get them in the first place.


So please rethink this, it was the only sour note in an otherwise very positive vlog.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 12 July 2014 - 08:13 AM.

[Escef]

Bryan Ekman, on 12 July 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

No promises yet, but I will review this with the team and see what/if anything makes sense based on the design change. i agree with the thought in principle, if we make radical changes that alter the experience, we should offer a solution. We have done this in the past several times.

Gonna say the same thing here I di on the Vlog comments section on YouTube:


An alternate suggestion on the Module system? 1 Weapon module slot, 1 Consumable slot, 1 Sensor slot, 1 Universal slot, and a second Universal slot unlockable with GXP. For balance reasons, certain mechs might have a second Weapon or Sensor slot, primarily the mechs that currently start with 3 module slots (the Atlas D-DC, Jenner K, Spider 5V, Raven 3L, and Yen Lo Wang). Mechs that default to start with 1 slot (Stalkers, Catapult K2, Awesome 8R, Hunchback 4P, and Jenner F) should simply have 2 Universal slots with a third unlockable for GXP. This generous amount of Universal slots would give them something to compensate for being gimped in module slots compared to other mechs (max of 3 modules compared to a max of 5).

[Goose of Prey]

Give 3 months of 100% resale price allowing us to keep what we want and get rid of redundant modules. Fair and not taxing on PGI, It also allows trying new combinations without penalties.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Kanigit, on 12 July 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

I saw nothing that indicates the modules are even changing, merely how you slot them into your ride. Really, if this is gonna be what kicks off your 'refund now' rant you need to take a deep breath.

That being said, when the camo and paint schemes were reworked a full refund for all that users had spent on camo and paint was issued (both MC and c-bills). I remember this well, as I was suddenly flush with MC and cbills

So, before you get bent out of shape just remember that they have issued refunds before when the system changes significantly. This particular change, the module slots, does not qualify as such imo.

Most of the proposed changes aren't a problem. What is a problem is changing the mech type slots available from 3 down to 1. Like most people, I have many 6 million C-bill modules that fit into these slots but almost zero of the other type. The reason is because the Mech type modules are overall useful and I have bought 3 of them to fill up my 3 slots. Take away two of those slots and now I have 2 useless modules sitting around.

Also I won't be using them in new mechs either simply because they aren't all equally useful to me. For example, Radar Deprivation is more important to me than Advanced zoom or seismic so with only 1 slot per mech, I am always going to slot a Radar Deprivation module. Also just because I know have a dedicated consumable module slot doesn't mean I am going to actually use consumables. I didn't before and likely won't still.

Same for the weapon modules. Sure this I might find useful...if everyone of them didn't have a drawback, usually heat. Heat is the one thing I always have too much of so why would I ever care about an extra 5m of range on a weapon that already has 500+ meters of range when gaining that 5m is going to cause my mech to run even hotter than it already does. Make it so each module is a buff without the draw back and make the buff substantial, maybe 15% more range or something then yeah it will be nice to have 3 of these slots to help customize and improve your mech.

Anyway I hope they use common sense. I mean what makes more sense to me is this:

2 mech modules per mech.
1 consumable on any mech aside from a light or possibly some of the scout-like mediums which would have 2.
2 weapons modules per mech but buff the heck out of the weapons modules to make them useful without a disadvantage.

Then for mastery, you get to chose which type of slot gets used as a bonus.

This way the system gets an overall that is actually useful and positive. Also it would add alot of diversity and customization to each mech AND most importantly NOT BE A FRICKEN NERF THAT PISSES OFF EVERYONE.

Seriously PGI, makes some positive changes for a change that get the community excited and encouraged. Instead all we get is nerfs to this, nerfs to that or crappy changes that make life miserable.

I am just tired of the negativity this game gives off every damn time anything changes.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Wintersdark, on 12 July 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

I do hope they get refunded.

If you've investing 18m in 3 modules for a build, and suddenly you can only use 1 of them, that leaves a 12m investment hanging.

Given that's the cost of a whole mech, that's very significant.

Hell, of multiple mechs in some cases.

Since the radar depravation and JJ shock absorb module, I've spen 30M + on modules just so I don't have to play "find the missing module game" in the mechlab.

A refund SHOULD be given on all modules purchased if they are going to do something this radical.

Viktor Drake, on 12 July 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Most of the proposed changes aren't a problem. What is a problem is changing the mech type slots available from 3 down to 1. Like most people, I have many 6 million C-bill modules that fit into these slots but almost zero of the other type. The reason is because the Mech type modules are overall useful and I have bought 3 of them to fill up my 3 slots. Take away two of those slots and now I have 2 useless modules sitting around.

Also I won't be using them in new mechs either simply because they aren't all equally useful to me. For example, Radar Deprivation is more important to me than Advanced zoom or seismic so with only 1 slot per mech, I am always going to slot a Radar Deprivation module. Also just because I know have a dedicated consumable module slot doesn't mean I am going to actually use consumables. I didn't before and likely won't still.


Anyway I hope they use common sense. I mean what makes more sense to me is this:

2 mech modules per mech.
1 consumable on any mech aside from a light or possibly some of the scout-like mediums which would have 2.
2 weapons modules per mech but buff the heck out of the weapons modules to make them useful without a disadvantage.

Then for mastery, you get to chose which type of slot gets used as a bonus.

This way the system gets an overall that is actually useful and positive. Also it would add alot of diversity and customization to each mech AND most importantly NOT BE A FRICKEN NERF THAT PISSES OFF EVERYONE.

Seriously PGI, makes some positive changes for a change that get the community excited and encouraged. Instead all we get is nerfs to this, nerfs to that or crappy changes that make life miserable.

I am just tired of the negativity this game gives off every damn time anything changes.

100% agree on the module type thing.

While I hope for common sense, their track record proves otherwise time and time again. Even with things like simply allowing for groups larger than 4 mans (aside from 12's) and private matches, very little faith or trust has been returned.

Edited by mwhighlander, 12 July 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[Rhaythe]

If your build only works because of modules, I have some bad news for you...