314 replies to this topic

[Knight_Invictus]

Very good decision.

Thanks!

[Angel of Annihilation]

All I can say is this is great news (compared to the alternative of having just one MECH slot available like they were taking about).

[LordLosh]

I too like most players are worried about a 2 slot consumable only system. while UAV and cool shot are useful no way any experienced player are going to take them over arty and air strikes due to the highest damage = best player set up that we have right now. I would rather see a system like we have now but fine tune it a bit. Make one mech, one consumable, one weapon, then if you master the mech you can have the hybrid slot that can be any one you want. You don't have to limit 1 per everything, IE weapon and mech slots just the consumables. This way players can chose what role type they want and you don't force arty and air strikes.
Also auto refill option is needed for the consumables.
*Also a list system that shows what modules other than consumables are on what mech is needed.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Well, arty and airstrikes won't be so overpowering if there were other good choices to compete with, but we only have 4 consumables right now. The more modules they offer (of roughly equal value), the less likely everyone will carry the same.

[Galenit]

After some time, i will try to be constructive again ...

About weaponmodules:

They should work to the characteristics of a weapon,
higher heat should not be the only option,
there should be different types for every weapon.

Examples:

Laser:
Increased range with longer cooldown
decreased heat with longer duration
shorter duration with higher heat

ACs:
Higher range with higher heat
higher projectilespeed with higher cooldown
shorter cooldown with decreased projectilespeed

UACs:
same as ACs
Decreased burst duration, higher heat

Missel:
Increased range with higher heat
higher flightspeed with greater cooldown
higher hp (of the missiles to reduce ams effect) with with slower flightspeed

Gauss:
Higher HP (for the weapon) with higher cooldown
Higher range with higher cooldown
reduced cooldown with higher heat

PPCs:
Higher Range with higher heat
Higher projectilespeed with higher cooldown
Reduced heat with reduced projectilespeed

MGs:
Higher range with higher cooldwon
Reduced cooldown with higher heat

Flamers:
Higher range with reduced critchance
increased critchance with higher heat

TAG:
Increased range with higher heat

NARC:
Increased range with higher cooldown
Increased flightspeed with higher cooldown
increased hp with reduced flightspeed

AMS:
Both modules can stay as they are


Edit:

About mechmodules:

Give them different slots to open a way to roles!

Sensorslots: sensor, optics, targeting and uav
Structurslots: gyro, climb, falldamagereduction, ...
Omnislots: All modules and consumables
Consumableslots

The masterslot is allways an omnislot.
The other slots depend on the mech,
no mech can get more slots as it has now expect the weaponmodules.

This way a mech will allways have an omnislot (by mastering it), a number of consumable and weaponslots matching the mech and some that match the characteristic of the mech.

Examples:
A Highlander will allways have 1 structurslot for its heavy legs
A Raven 3L will have 2 sensorslots at least
A jager will allways have 1 sensorslot at least because its an aa-mech

Edited by Galenit, 21 July 2014 - 03:40 PM.

[Hayato1983]

Now, this is a step forward! Dunno yet about consumables.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Although, I still like to see a modular system that also includes our Mech Tree Efficiencies.

[Nightmare1]

Interesting...veeeery interesting....

Can't wait to see how it works! Hope it's awesome!

Thanks for the update PGI!

[Asmudius Heng]

Again - This system adds NOTHING to role warfare and is a HUGE missed opportunity to actually define mechs roles and give them a level of differentiation.

My original rant here:

Quote

The module change was PGIs chance to start redefining role warfare in this game where that pillar has yet to really have any meaning at all.

Instead we get a cgance deliberatly designed to make people spend more XP and cbills on the worthless weapons modules.

This is HORRIBLY dissapointing PGI.

By making this a generic, dull, uninspired time sink you have crapped on any chances of making a set of role warfare enhancers.

You already had roles for modules, sensor types, support types etc weapons as well ... instead of using ROLES to define modules you are basically forcing people to spend for the weapons thats it.

Here this is how you redesign modules.

Have weapons slots
Have mech slots
Have support slots
Have sensor slots

Now every module is tagged with one of those catagories including consumables. example:

Coolshot -> weapons
UAV -> Sensor
Artillery -> support

Now you have 4 basic roles in modules.
-Ones that enhance your mech performance (hill climb, fall damage etc)
-Ones that enhance your sensors (Seismic, target retention etc)
-Ones that provide support to your team(capture accel, this one might need more modules released for it)
-And of course weapons based modules

Now apply these VERY differently depending on the mech. Lets take a look at a few.

1. Raven: Your sensor mech, this one might have three Sensor modules, one support module, and one mech module - thats right NO WEAPONS module they do not ALL have to have every type.

2. Jenner: A light with a different role might have: two weapons modules, one sensor module, 2 mech modules - This mech can modify its performance and its weapons being the striker mech but it cannot do artillery

3. Catapult: 2 sensor modules, 2 support modules, 1 weapons module - This mech might not be able to modify its performance much but it can boost its LRMs, get decent sensor help, and can add artillery and more being a support mech

4. Victor, lets take a look at a meta mech - 2 mech modules, 1 sensor module, 2 weapons modules - Inhibits it bringing arty but it has good weapons and can enhance the machine itself with some sensor backup

5. DDC Atlas A command mech - 2 sensor modules, 2 support modules, 1 mech module - All about sensors, supporting and something to help boost the machine itself but stops it being a weapons enhancer.

Now weapons modules need to be worth a damn for this to really work and these are just rough ideas but I really hope PGI can see that this would help balance, this would help role warfare, this would get them to sell more weapons modules because they are there and people WILL fill them.

What you propose PGI is horrific and a waste of time and an obvious cbill/xp sink.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Wise decision. Thanks for listening to the community. That hard earned master slot should be our choice. Although not a Universal slot, thanks for the compromise.

Jody

[Ultimax]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 21 July 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

We appreciate these might not be the changes you personally want, but they are the ones expected or desired by the majority of players and will open the door for further improvements.

The powers/systems team will need to do some amazing work if the weapon modules are to ever be considered remotely usable, much less any kind of "improvement".

If you told me I could have a choice between slotting any FIVE weapon module slots or ONE Mech module slot - my choice would be one mech module slot.

If you upped the ante to 10 weapon module slots vs. 1 mech module slot, my answer would remain unchanged.


This is how bad the current weapon module slots are.


So when this system goes live, those weapon module slots will simply remain empty on most players mechs and will largely be what is commonly called a noob trap.

I don't think the team is deliberately setting out to create a noob trap, but that is in fact what these are.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 21 July 2014 - 04:23 PM.

[LordLosh]

AMS range will be used
Streak SRMs will be used
Machine gun range will be used
so its not all a noob trap

[TercieI]

Ultimatum X, on 21 July 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

The powers/systems team will need to do some amazing work if the weapon modules are to ever be considered remotely usable, much less any kind of "improvement".

If you told me I could have a choice between slotting any FIVE weapon module slots or ONE Mech module slot - my choice would be one mech module slot.

If you upped the ante to 10 weapon module slots vs. 1 mech module slot, my answer would remain unchanged.


This is how bad the current weapon module slots are.


So when this system goes live, those weapon module slots will simply remain empty on most players mechs and will largely be what is commonly called a noob trap.

I don't think the team is deliberately setting out to create a noob trap, but that is in fact what these are.

QFT.

Most of these have negative value and are thus dumb to equip even if the opportunity cost is removed.

[Threat Doc]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 21 July 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Aiming for the 29th, assuming no hiccups in testing.

This new module slot system will, then, hopefully be a good birthday present. 43 on the 29th.

[Asmudius Heng]

Quote

We appreciate these might not be the changes you personally want, but they are the ones expected or desired by the majority of players and will open the door for further improvements

This is a bit of a reach Niko. Giving the community a set idea the modifying that idea only sightly then saying you are giving the community what it wants is no really correct.

It is like taking an order for a hamburger with no cheese, then giving them a sandwich with cheese, Then removing the cheese when they complain and patting yourself on the back for good customer service.

What the community wants is role warfare, no massive proliferation of consumables, lots of customisation, Weapons modules worth equiping, an good balance.

The current implementation idea does no do any of these,

[Arkbird_]

Consider me one of the very happy ones with this change! I caught that little tidbit about it being only a weapon module and i wasn't very happy with it so I'm very glad to see this adjusted. Well done

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Thank you for making the slot earned through mastery to be something other than a weapon module.

In public matches, I very rarely use any consumables, and I don't think this will change much (a guy's gotta earn C-Bills).

I currently use the three (or two, or four) "mech modules" most appropriate for the given 'mech/build (most often, Target Info Gathering and Radar Deprivation) ... bringing that down to one module would have been a pretty significant change.

I don't use weapon modules right now because:
(1) the benefit (a tiny bit more range) is not worth it most of the time (when my target is within effective range), and
(2) the penalty (a bit more heat) will either reduce my rate of fire or risk shutting me down ... both of which could possibly get me killed ... all of the time.

My recommendations:
- limit strikes to one per 'mech per match, or add new consumables that are as interesting or impactful
- more variety and balance in the attributes affected by weapon modules (maybe with slightly different visual or audio effects?)
- use the number of available 'mech module slots to help balance between the various chassis and variants (for example, a RVN-3L ... the most useful RVN ... should not have more 'mech module slots than the other variants)

Edits: clarity

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 21 July 2014 - 04:44 PM.

[Sandpit]

Ok...

I think PGI is really dropping the ball here and missing the biggest potential factor in helping get a diverse variety of mechs on the battlefield.

To mirror what a few others have said (although I think I'm taking it a step further)

First make some modules that are mech and weight specific.
IE:
Scouting Module: +5% sensor range or a speed boost for certain mechs (or weight classes although using this on specific chassis such as the locust would give a reason to use those mechs more) and a +10% cbill and/or xp earned for any action related to scouting (think a bonus for every spotting reward you get)

Recon Module = increase in enemy lock time, or reduced enemy sensor range for your mech only, stuff like that.

Get creative with this stuff. This is where you have a chance to add some diversity to the game. Brawler module = maybe a bigger twist radius. You can doo all kinds of stuff with this. Limit some of the modules to specific chassis and this entices players to use those unpopular mechs more often without feeling "forced" to do so.

This is supposed to be mechWARRIOR online. That means we're supposed to be playing as an IS or CLan pilot. The mechs aren't the "characters" we are. So give pilots some skills and a certain number of skill "modules" that are tied to the pilot, not the mech.

Light Mech Specialist: Once this skill is purchased the player gets a speed and sensor bonus to all light mechs they pilot. If they decide to become a "heavy specialist" later, allow them to reset the skill and purchase a different weight class (for a cbill or xp cost so people don't just switch it out every match) Each weight class has its own set of perks.
Medium = speed boost and something like a bonus to their mobility (so they can torso twist a little further, turn a little faster, etc.)
Heavy = maybe a slightly faster heat dissipation
Assault = something like above and maybe add in or substitute a torso twist boost, etc.

Leadership: You get a bonus to assists as opposed to kills. or your entire team gets a boost to their sensor range (to simulate an experienced "leader" being on the field)

Sensor Specialist: Any mech carrying advanced sensor suites gets a bonus to them (Narc, Tag, ECM, BAP, etc.)

Special piloting skills such as recon, brawler, etc. Tie these skills to the pilot and give them xx amount of "slots" to add in skills for their character as opposed to putting everything on the mech. you're completely forgetting that mechs aren't the only "units" in the game. We have warrior characters. It adds depth and immersion.

The current system that's being proposed just doesn't "help" anything or create anything new or add to depth. All of this stuff should be "fairly" simple because you've already laid the groundwork with weapon modules and such. You're really missing an opportunity to add a lot of depth. And the old "soon" or "well for now we're just going with this" taglines aren't cutting it. It's time for you to listen to your community on stuff like this BEFORE you deploy it. Listen to your customers telling you what they want and need to enjoy the game more.

[Odanan]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 21 July 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Aiming for the 29th or the test immediately following, assuming no hiccups in testing.

With the new IS mech?

[Odanan]

Ultimatum X, on 21 July 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

Well this is at least slightly better than it was, the nerf is only a touch milder.

You would get less resistance and negativity if

1) Weapon Modules weren't totally awful, providing only the most meager of buffs that actually incur more heat when using them.
2) You outlined how you were going to revamp all weapon modules so they will no longer awful.

Even if you continue the current progression, add Weapon Mod tiers 3 to 5 I will still never use any of them because the design is awful.

How are they awful?

> They are too expensive in both Cbills & GXP
> The bonuses are pointless, no one cares about adding 2m range to a weapon.
> They actually add a drawback in the form of more heat, in a game where heat is already an ever present bottle neck.
> All of the modules are too specific, we don't need modules for SRM 2s, and SRM 4s, and SRM 6s. Combine this with Cbill/GXP cost for mind boggling level of investment for the worst possible returns. One for small lasers, one for medium lasers, one for large lasers - are you serious with this?

I try not to be too brutal with reviews of things, but the current system/numbers deserves it.

This. ^

It will be hard to fill those weapon slots if they don't remove the heat penalty...