314 replies to this topic

[GreyGriffin]

From another thread.

GreyGriffin, on 14 July 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

Taking a trip way back in the WABAC machine, Modules were originally going to interact with efficiency trees (unique per 'mech) to be the cornerstone of Role Warfare, a way to customize your 'mech to be more efficient at one of the several roles proposed in early design. I personally think that this idea is strong design. However, it would require a gutting and complete reworking of both systems at this point, not these inch by inch measures.

I am particularly incensed at the "Consumable" slot from the context of design. Even taking away naked the Pay to Win aspect, how does it fit into the game's design aesthetic? You can have a coolant flush tank or... an air strike... ? In the same kind of slot?

But at a more basic level, while I am not a fan of Consumables in general, if they are in, they have to be integrated and balanced on the same level as other modules. Giving them their own category, above and beyond other modules, slots that can only be filled if you have the money, this is pretty much the textbook definition of Pay to Win, c-bill variant or no. (See: Hero 'Mechs and R&R.)

Modules need reworking. They need to be an opportunity to customize your 'mech in a meaningful fashion. I like the idea of Weapon modules (which are terrible) getting their own category, but other than that the whole proposal is a mess. Strangling the actually interesting and exciting level of customization through 'mech modules, while bringing back the massive Long Tom battles is like a half step forwards and a huge shove backwards off the Matterhorn.

[BSK]

How will 'mechs whose low hardpoints were balanced out by additional module slot now have a chance? The Jenner-K is lacking a missile hardpoint compared to the Jenner-D, so he got 3 module slots instead of 2. If this gets reduced, how will it be equal then to the other chassis?

[Mike McSullivan]

BSK, on 23 July 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

How will 'mechs whose low hardpoints were balanced out by additional module slot now have a chance? The Jenner-K is lacking a missile hardpoint compared to the Jenner-D, so he got 3 module slots instead of 2. If this gets reduced, how will it be equal then to the other chassis?

thats a good question. I ask myself too, if they will take this issue to overhaul all mechs. I dont like a "all-the-same" option at all.
Imho, they should give the "worst" mechtypes a bonus, while cutting a Slot for the so called "OP"-mechs.

[Magna Canus]

Adding and subtracting module slots to balance mechs was a quick fix at some point in time, but now that the board is being wiped and all mechs are getting more or less the same slots, a better mech balance needs to be considered. Since we are slowly getting Quirks in (most lights just recently got a +5% leg structure quirk) we may see some individual mechs get a bonus or minus depending.

Take the stalker for example; 1 module slot +1 on mastery. Under the new system they will have 6 like every other mech. Where you would put in 1 or 2 mech modules and maybe 1 consumable (most often cool shot), now you can fit 2 mech modules, your cool shot, an arty, and maybe use a weapon module if it seems worth it (individual preference).

Take the Raven 3L on the other side; 3 module slots +1 on mastery. You could fill that little bugger with lots of nice things to help your scout/sniper role (Advanced zoom, Target info, maybe gyros due to the new leg damage thing, and most sneaky mechs run an arty). You have a net loss of 1 or 2 slots depending on preference, BUT i opens up doors for other things like the new NARC weapon module (really nice). Ravens with NARC will no longer "sacrifice" a slot to have it, so most running NARC will run this module on top. All of a sudden cool shot for the 2erll Raven becomes "standard", because there is a slot there anyways and it does help with performance. If you ran an arty or a cool shot before the loss becomes less noticeable.

Nobody NEEDS to run weapon modules and the changes with consumable slots will affect people that used consumable before less than those that did not. This looks like step 1 of a longer series of changes that may incorporate other mech slot types like sensor slots. Weapon modules are rarely useful in the moment, but that may change.

For me, there will be very little required to adapt. On average I use 2 general mech modules per mech with a few notable exceptions. My SHD Streak/LBX mech runs Seismic, Radar dep, and sensor range. I guess I will have to drop the sensor range and for that maybe pick up the streak range module instead (streak are hard capped at 270 M so maybe those 12m might net me more hits on fast/agile lights). And since I have 2 consumable slots now, why not get a UAV to use when the situation demands? I'm not much of an arty/strike user so some new consumables would be nice and I am sure we have lots of ideas there. Hell, with the JJ nerf a JJ consumable would be nice (JJ overload, 2x jump distance + instant JJ refil) for those times when you really need to get over that ridge and into cover.

[WintermuteOmega]

I know this post is pointless, since there have been posts like this be ignored, but heck, I want to imagine what this came COULD be like (just as I imagine what I COULD do with 10 Mil. $$$). It really makes me sad how PGI constantly misses good opportunities to make this game better, instead they tinker here and there, not really improving, but just changing the game and the mechanics.

As I take it, the main reason for the revamp is the following:

• Not enough consumables are being used (no C-Bill / MC-Dump for PGI). As I understand it, PGI has to find ways to incentivize the game. Right now, they tend to have low steady income but huge income-boosts with Packages like the Phoenix- and Clan-Package. Therefore they hope to up the income by people spending their C-Bills until they have to resort to MC. I understand that, but there must be better ways to incentivize MWO.
  
• No one uses Weapon-Modules (since they are ****)

The module revamp could be the entry gate to Role Warfare
The focus of the game has been always far too much on direct damage, as seen that support roles that tag or cap but don’t get much direct damage almost always get far less XP & C-Bill than their damage dealing counter parts. This has been addressed in the past by giving bonuses for Spotting / Narcing etc, but still feels very uneven. And this trend is present with the module-revamp as well. Why do we get, for example “weapon module-slots” but no “support module-slots”?
So here is “the community’s” idea of Modules - when PGI can say they speak for the community, so can I ;-P

Split Modules into more than kinds of Slots according to the roles they perform on the Battlefield:

• Sensory Modules
  
• Counter Measures-Modules
  
• Support Modules
  
• Weapon Modules
  
• Mobility Modules
  
• Consumables
  
• Mech- / Omni-Modules

Some very powerful Modules, like for example could also occupy wallstreet, I mean occupy more than 1 kind of Module-Slots. Radar Deprivation for example could occupy 1 Mech-Module-Slot and 1 Sensory Module Slot. This would make the Mastery-Module Slot even more important, hence some mechs could have zero Sensory module slots in stock, so you would have to use the Omni-Module slot for Sensory to equip Radar Deprivation. So the Mech- and Omni-Module (unlockable by Mastery where every module can be fitted.) would be limiting the Mech to one or 2 powerful Modules, that require both, a Misc- and a Master-Module Slot.
Another idea: Why not let Modules unlock similar to the Skills? So you start with 1 Mech-Module and 1 Weapon module and as you progress, you can unlock more and more Module-Slots. In unlocking, you have to declare what Slot it should be. Reskilling would require 50 MC per Module Slot or 5 Mil. C-Bills. Still all Mechs would have “hardpoint Module limits”, so that every mech-variant would be unique in in’s possible Module-Layout.
Here is, what this System would look like: (I snuck some ides into the existing Modules, since there are still way too few to make this a thing about real choices).

• Sensory Modules
  
  • 360°Target retention
    
  • Target Info Gather
    
  • Advanced Zoom
    
  • Target Decay
    
  • Seismic Sensors (+Mech Module)
    
  • Sensor Range

• Counter Measures-Modules
  
  • Radar Deptivation (+Mech Module)
    
  • AMS Rate of Fire
    
  • Sturdy (+10% more Armor) (+Mech Module)
    
  • Elusive (even without ECM only targetable after 3 Seconds in LOS) (+Mech Module)

• Support Modules
  
  • Enhanced ECM Range
    
    • Angel ECM (+Mech Module)
  • Enhanced TAG Range
    
  • Capture Accelerator
    
  • Stealth UAV (UAV that is lightly cloaked and not visible for the enemy on the Minimap)

• Weapon Modules
  
  • Tuned NARC
    
  • AMS Overload
    
  • AMS Range
    
  • Enhanced NARC
    
  • All other Weapon Enhancements
    
  • Increase ROF by 5% (+ Mech Module)
    
  • Decrease Weapon Heat output by 5% (+ Mech Module)

• Mobility Modules
  
  • Improved Gyros
    
  • Hill Climb
    
  • Speed Retention
    
  • Shock absorbance
    
  • Mastery Anchor Turn (Additional 5% rotating Speed)
    
  • Enhanced JJ Range by 25%

• Consumables
  
  • Cool Shot
    
  • Arty
    
  • Air
    
  • Signal Flare (shoots a Flare in the Sky that can be used to command units by directing them to the Enemy)
    
  • EMP Pulse (Disrupts ECM / UAV for 10 Seconds)

It would be even possible to give certain Mechs unique, free build in Modules, that emphasize their role on the Battlefield.

Possible Mech-Layouts:
Raven:

• 3 Sensory Modules
  
• 3 Counter Measures-Modules
  
• 3 Support Modules
  
• 1 Weapon Modules
  
• 2 Mobility Modules
  
• 4 Consumables
  
• 1 Mech- / + Omni-Modules

Atlas:

• 1 Sensory Modules
  
• 1 Counter Measures-Modules
  
• 0 Support Modules
  
• 4 Weapon Modules
  
• 1 Mobility Modules
  
• 3 Consumables
  
• 1 Mech- / + Omni-Modules

So… that’s my 2 cents about this whole Modules thing. So much wasted potential….

[Gorgo7]

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

In other news of more interest, ty PGI for making this sensible revison to modules to provide additional pilot choice and scope for selecting module preferences as an ogoing exercise with MWO's development.

Couldn't agree more!

[Mechteric]

With all these modules we're going to be having, its going to be even more important that we get a feature that makes it so we only have to buy a module once then be able to attach that module to any number of mechs. Otherwise we're just going to be swapping modules around even more than we already do whenever we swap mechs.

[xeromynd]

Plain and simple:


Modules either need universal buffing, or need to be cheaper.

[DONTOR]

I' dont understand how anyone can be negative towards PGI, here is a classic example of them listening to us, and doing the right thing... Yet people are still Biatching.

TY PGI very well done, this IS a great change.

[Wrayeth]

This actually looks like a very interesting system. I'm not sure I'd agree with all of the new modules being suggested (especially the 5% armor, which would become mandatory for just about everybody), but the general premise sounds good.

EDIT: Grr... Quoting doesn't appear to be working at the moment. This was in reply to post #188 above from WintermuteOmega.

Edited by Wrayeth, 24 July 2014 - 06:38 AM.

[Cimarb]

DONTOR, on 24 July 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

I' dont understand how anyone can be negative towards PGI, here is a classic example of them listening to us, and doing the right thing... Yet people are still Biatching.

TY PGI very well done, this IS a great change.

There is unfortunately an invisible (and ever shifting) line between needless complaining and constructive suggestions. I like this system better than the existing one, praise PGI for listening to us about the mastery slot, but also think there are several things they could do to improve it. Here is my "short list"...

1. Limit the use of arty/air to prevent spam (via CTC/CC or by "command"/"scout" chassis)
2. Encourage role warfare by giving different mechs different types of module slots based upon their suggested role
3. Fix weapon module balance to make them worth equipping
4. Increase the variety of weapon and consumable modules

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 24 July 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

There is unfortunately an invisible (and ever shifting) line between needless complaining and constructive suggestions. I like this system better than the existing one, praise PGI for listening to us about the mastery slot, but also think there are several things they could do to improve it. Here is my "short list"...

1. Limit the use of arty/air to prevent spam (via CTC/CC or by "command"/"scout" chassis)
2. Encourage role warfare by giving different mechs different types of module slots based upon their suggested role
3. Fix weapon module balance to make them worth equipping
4. Increase the variety of weapon and consumable modules

This
There's a big difference between not liking something and offering suggestions to improve even further. So anyone who disputes that thinks this game is perfect and can't be improved in any way?
I can't understand why people complain when you give pgi suggestions on how to improve the game for everyone

[SgtKinCaiD]

@Niko : A command chair post is REALLY needed on the subject !!!

[Draconis March]

DONTOR, on 24 July 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

I' dont understand how anyone can be negative towards PGI, here is a classic example of them listening to us, and doing the right thing... Yet people are still Biatching.

TY PGI very well done, this IS a great change.

...Are you serious?

Cimarb, on 24 July 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

There is unfortunately an invisible (and ever shifting) line between needless complaining and constructive suggestions. I like this system better than the existing one, praise PGI for listening to us about the mastery slot, but also think there are several things they could do to improve it.

There have been numerous posts in this thread that point out the problems with their current idea in a very logical and coherent manner, and also numerous posts that propose very helpful and logical paths for revision, so I'm not sure who exactly you're referring to.

Sandpit, on 24 July 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

I can't understand why people complain when you give pgi suggestions on how to improve the game for everyone

Probably because they actually very seldom listen to feedback and dig their heels in and continue doing it the way THEY want. When they DO actually use suggestions (which I'm convinced only happens after they feel they've lost money from it), they have a major tendency to bastardize them to a point where it's only a shadow of what the original suggestion was, and so it looks like they did it just to PRETEND that they're actually listening. Like a kid forced to share his cookies but spits on them first just to spite the other kid.

Edited by Draconis March, 24 July 2014 - 08:10 AM.

[WintermuteOmega]

Wrayeth, on 24 July 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

This actually looks like a very interesting system. I'm not sure I'd agree with all of the new modules being suggested (especially the 5% armor, which would become mandatory for just about everybody), but the general premise sounds good.

EDIT: Grr... Quoting doesn't appear to be working at the moment. This was in reply to post #188 above from WintermuteOmega.

Well, i had a lot of free time on my hands at work, so the suggested new modules are a sprinkle of fun there, though i don't think that 5% armor would be so OP that every mech would need it. But i see your point. In any case, you can absoulety ignore my modul suggestions ^.^

[Corbon Zackery]

As long as I am refunded for all module bought. I am fine for the change. 64 mechs with advanced sensors. So $128,000,000 c-bills will need to be refunded to me plus a few million in change.

Thanks

[Tynan]

DONTOR, on 24 July 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

I' dont understand how anyone can be negative towards PGI, here is a classic example of them listening to us, and doing the right thing... Yet people are still Biatching.

TY PGI very well done, this IS a great change.

People are being negative because this change 1) invalidates module loadouts that many of us currently use (and prefer using) , 2) promotes use of more arty / air, which is a categorically bad thing (imo, at least) and 3) squanders an opportunity to take a more detailed / nuanced approach, which I and numerous others have discussed in varying detail throughout the thread (WintermuteOmega went into the most detail).

The change isn't the worst thing ever, but it's a sidestep, not a step forward.

[Cimarb]

Draconis March, on 24 July 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

There have been numerous posts in this thread that point out the problems with their current idea in a very logical and coherent manner, and also numerous posts that propose very helpful and logical paths for revision, so I'm not sure who exactly you're referring to.

Probably because they actually very seldom listen to feedback and dig their heels in and continue doing it the way THEY want. When they DO actually use suggestions (which I'm convinced only happens after they feel they've lost money from it), they have a major tendency to bastardize them to a point where it's only a shadow of what the original suggestion was, and so it looks like they did it just to PRETEND that they're actually listening. Like a kid forced to share his cookies but spits on them first just to spite the other kid.

I was referring to everyone, and my post makes that pretty clear. What is logical and coherent to one person, though, can seem ludicrous to another, and vice versa. That is why the line between the two is invisible (you cannot see it) and constantly shifting (people's opinions change based upon mood, topic, etc).

As far as PGI listening, you are posting in a thread where they DID listen, and changed something quickly due to that listening, before it was even implemented in the game. While they may not always listen to every suggestion, they DO listen and act upon it, and that is the reason the vast majority of the changes, for good or ill, have been implemented. Name a change they have made, and there is a 99% chance that at least one person in the community suggested it first.

Tynan, on 24 July 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

People are being negative because this change 1) invalidates module loadouts that many of us currently use (and prefer using) , 2) promotes use of more arty / air, which is a categorically bad thing (imo, at least) and 3) squanders an opportunity to take a more detailed / nuanced approach, which I and numerous others have discussed in varying detail throughout the thread (WintermuteOmega went into the most detail).

The change isn't the worst thing ever, but it's a sidestep, not a step forward.

I agree with #s 2 & 3, but not # 1. The only module loadout this would "invalidate" would be the rare few that use 3+ general modules, and I honestly have trouble picking my 3rd and 4th modules most of the time. My LRM boats use two modules for that role, and the rest of my builds use zoom+seismic, but only my DDC really makes use of more than two general modules.

The problem, though, is that we will now have two weapon modules that are extremely "meh", and essentially two "free" consumable modules that will make the StrikeSpam we currently have look tame in comparison. On top of the complaining people on the receiving end will do, we will also see an increase in complaining about cbill income, as everyone will say that strikes are now required and their cbills should be increased to compensate...

[Tynan]

Cimarb, on 24 July 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

I agree with #s 2 & 3, but not # 1. The only module loadout this would "invalidate" would be the rare few that use 3+ general modules, and I honestly have trouble picking my 3rd and 4th modules most of the time. My LRM boats use two modules for that role, and the rest of my builds use zoom+seismic, but only my DDC really makes use of more than two general modules.

The problem, though, is that we will now have two weapon modules that are extremely "meh", and essentially two "free" consumable modules that will make the StrikeSpam we currently have look tame in comparison. On top of the complaining people on the receiving end will do, we will also see an increase in complaining about cbill income, as everyone will say that strikes are now required and their cbills should be increased to compensate...

We 99% agree on this, my only thing is that I'd rather have Adv Sensors, Adv. Zoom,, Radar Dep. and, say, Info Gathering than the largely counterproductive weapon modules as they're currently conceived. It's true that most of the benefits beyond one or two are pretty minimal for an intended role, I'd still prefer it. I kind of hate the consumables, so I've been avoiding them. Now we don't really have that as a choice, the only choice is "bring less or bring coolshot / strikes."

[Kraven Kor]

Hooray! They listened! Edit: Wait... Maybe?

Don't take away our ability to use three useful modules. I want Enhanced Zoom, Advanced Sensor Range, and Target Info Gathering. Period.

Uh... who are you and what have you done with PGI? I mean, I like it, but I don't want anyone like chained up in a basement or anything...

Edited by Kraven Kor, 24 July 2014 - 11:10 AM.