19 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

My proposal is this...

Modules depend on weight class with some chassis having different quirks.

Light mechs:

Lights would get 4 consumable slots allowing them to carry UAV/Arty/Airstrike/Coolshot (enhancing scout role/striker role)

Lights would get just 2 weapon module slots

Lights would get 3 baseline mech module slots (post mastery)

Medium mechs:

Mediums would get 3 consumable slots

Mediums would get 3 weapon module slots

Mediums would get 3 mech module slots (post mastery)

Heavy mechs:

Heavies would get 1 consumable slot

Heavies would get 3 weapon module slots

Heavies would get 3 mech module slots (post mastery)

Assaults mechs:

Assaults would get 1 consumable slot

Assaults would get 2 weapon module slots

Assaults would get 4 mech modules slots (post mastery)

Now, the idea is, this would reinforce lights as scout mechs/striker mechs and make their use for consumables and scouting second to none.

Mediums being a sort of jack of all trades can still carry some consumables, but would get more mech module slots, allowing them to carry modules like target info/seismic and other modules good for intel and survivability.

Heavy mechs can carry less consumables, but more weapon modules because they are a weapons platform and are designed for roles opposite of scouting, they also get an extra mech module slot to allow them to gain better perspective of the battlefield through sensory/zoom, etc.

Assault mechs carry the same consumable slot heavy mechs get, and less weapon modules, but as a battlefield command platform get the most mech module slots.

Thoughts?

Edited by Gyrok, 29 July 2014 - 12:24 PM.

[Gyrok]

Is no player interested in better defined roles for mechs?

Edited by Gyrok, 29 July 2014 - 02:26 PM.

[Hellcat420]

4 consumable slots is too much.

[Solahma]

Really don't think this is the way to do it. That small change wouldn't add role diversity at all IMO

[Ansgar Odinson]

I like it, I hate the new system. Being forced to carry consumables or the all too useless weapon mods in a heavy is ridiculous. If anyone should be carrying boat loads of smokes and uav it should be scouts.

[Varik Ronain]

I think the only problem is that all mechs have 2 consumable slots. I would roll everyone but lights and mechs designed to be command mechs into having just one. Way too many strikes in the group q before this change let alone after it.

[FupDup]

I don't think each class as a whole should get standardized mod slots. It should vary for each specific variant. As an example, the Raven 3L should be more support/sensor oriented, whereas the slow Ravens should be mostly weapon mods (assuming weapon mods were buffed to be not useless) and maybe 1-2 mech mods.


Also, I think that module categories need to be broadened. Just having consumable/weapon/mech slots is way too narrow to create any real sense of "flavor" between chassis. The new breakdown might look like Sensors, Offensive, Defensive, Support, Weapon, and/or Mech modules.

Consumables would be placed into the category that each one fits best, i.e. UAV would be sensor and arty/air would be support. No more dedicated consumable slots -- they should be in direct competition with passive modules at all times.

[damonwolf]

IMO, the solutions to the problems, and anger/frustration they created with this patch is thus:

1) Complete reset of the module system with refund of all GXP and CBills for modules.
2) Give all Mechs 2 module slots to start, with the 3rd unlocked though the trees. Hero Mechs can have 4 module slots.
3) Don't limit the module slots to a specific type, let the pilots decide what modules they want to equip.
4) Make the weapon modules actually add something to the weapon. Right now they are complete crap, and add little other than heat (which IMO is punishing a pilot for equipping a weapon module).
5) Don't discriminate against weapons, have Weapon module slots for ALL weapons, not just a few select ones. Example: no LRM module).

[Vassago Rain]

It's a really bad system.

[The Blood God]

yeah needs a bit of tweeking in every ones opinion but in different ways although there are some good points, the thing that bugs me and that not one sane pilot will disagree with is that the weapon mods need to be worth taking into battle or removed from the game

[Gyrok]

FupDup, on 29 July 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

I don't think each class as a whole should get standardized mod slots. It should vary for each specific variant. As an example, the Raven 3L should be more support/sensor oriented, whereas the slow Ravens should be mostly weapon mods (assuming weapon mods were buffed to be not useless) and maybe 1-2 mech mods.


Also, I think that module categories need to be broadened. Just having consumable/weapon/mech slots is way too narrow to create any real sense of "flavor" between chassis. The new breakdown might look like Sensors, Offensive, Defensive, Support, Weapon, and/or Mech modules.

Consumables would be placed into the category that each one fits best, i.e. UAV would be sensor and arty/air would be support. No more dedicated consumable slots -- they should be in direct competition with passive modules at all times.

I agree entirely with this, those are baselines. As I said above, (I think I did...?) there could be variant specific quirks that deviate from that...

I could understand dialing back consumables or reorganizing them in such a manner that they have different categories...this was just something I thought about for roughly 5 minutes and threw together because I thought it would be more productive than a bunch of rage threads...

[Prezimonto]

I would much prefer to create new categories entirely for what types of module slots exist on a mech.

Command --- Air Strike, Artillery Strike, UAV, Capture Accelerator, Radar Deprivation

Support --- Advanced zoom, UAV, Capture Accelerator, Cool Shot, Tag/NARC/AMS buffs

Sensors --- 360 target retention, UAV, Seismic, Sensor Range, Target Decay, Target Info Gathering

Movement --- Hill Climb, Improved Gyros, Shock Absorbance, Speed Retention

Scout --- Air Strike, Artillery Strike, UAV, Radar Deprivation, Tag/NARC/AMS buffs

Combat --- all weapons upgrades except ams/tag/narc, Cool Shot, Target Decay, Target Info Gathering

General --- Open to all modules

The aim appears to be about 5 modules with a 6th after mastery, and one or two more for under loved mechs, and one or two less for mechs that are a little over powered. Consumables can be doubled up if they're in separate sections, but all others can not (or at least provide no benefit). It could even be stated that at least one slot, if you have multiple slots in a category that contains consumables should be dedicated to a consumable.

Examples:
Atlas DDC: Command 2, Combat 1, Movement 1, General upon mastery
Spider 5V: Scout 2, Sensors 1, Support 1, Combat 1, Movement 1, General upon mastery
Catapult K2: Combat 2, Support 2, Sensors 1, General upon mastery
Raven 3L: Support 2, Sensors 2, Combat 1, General upon mastery

In general, I'd see many mechs getting Support 1, Sensors 1, Combat 1, and 2 of whatever else makes sense. Larger mechs, or mechs with poor agility performance would often get at least Movement 1 as one of their slots.

Edited by Prezimonto, 29 July 2014 - 04:28 PM.

[Grayblue]

Player should choose the role they want to play then equip themselves as they see fit, not getting what somebody else decided that fits that role slammed down their throat.

The change does not make me play any differently. Just do the same with less efficiency. Nothing good came out of this for me.

How in the hell is this shaping community warfare when it does not even exist yet, and no one even knows how it will play out?

[Khobai]

Agree with the above. The way it shouldve been done is every module shouldve been divided into subcategories like weapon, defense, mobility, sensor, support, universal, etc... And every mech shouldve had different categories of modules. Mastery would give you a universal slot that ANY module could go into. Most medium mechs would also get an extra universal slot which could equip any module. Additionally consumable slots would be reduced to 1 to prevent arty/airstrike spam, either that or consumable slots could be divided into offensive and defensive consumable slots and every mech would get one of each.

Examples:
Atlas-D-DC: 1 consumable, 1 weapon, 2 defense, and 1 command/support
Stalker: 1 consumable, 2 weapon, 1 defense, and 1 sensor
Catapult: 1 consumable, 1 weapon, 1 defense, 1 command/support, and 1 sensor
Hunchback: 1 consumable, 2 weapon, 1 defense, and 1 universal
Jenner: 1 consumable, 1 weapon, 1 mobility, 2 sensor

Edited by Khobai, 29 July 2014 - 06:51 PM.

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

Weapon modules suck... If they want to burn c-bills from players, they need to remove the heat penalties...

I wish command consoles gave a mech module slot. Ill probably not get my wish and even if I did, I probably still wouldn't field a command console... But some people might?

Anyway, weapon modules suck, so giving a heavy mech 3 weapon modules is like giving them 0-1 weapon modules... Because they will probably only consider 1 if any at all. Anyway, PGI should incentivize weapon modules, instead of punish players. I wouldn't mind loosing max range of a weapon if it ment it ran cooler. That's the exact reason I run IS-PPC over IS-ERPPC.

[CyclonerM]

Just a small fix, Gyrok. Divide the consumable slots to "Strike", and "utility". You should have only 1 Strike slot and 1/2 utility slots, so you can bring an UAV and a cool shot but not an Arty AND an Air strike.

[Shae Starfyre]

For balance reasons, I chose something else.

I think they should change the catagories to Electronic, Mechanical, and Weapon and do away with the consumable catagory and just place the consumable in the right location.

This will also then allow a more balanced and precise methodology to figure out which mech should have what number of slots in each catagory.

A consumable without classification is a strange thing to say that one mech over another should have more or less than.

By looking at the purposed role of a mech, it is much easier to conclude that this mech should have this many electronic slots over this other mech.

Or, this mech should be more mechanical (Dragon Slayer - Mechanical Module for Agilty).

What this does is open the flood gates for more creativity in developing modules to modify mechs beyond a quirk system; you can also have actual crit slot tonnage items affect the number of slots with gains and losses; example...

I could by use of the command console gain an extra electronic module slot (loss of the module and its effects if the command console is critted) or the Dragon Slayer could be fitted with some mechanical construct that gives it an extra mechanical slot for increased agility at the cost of tonnage and the possibility of losing that agility if it is destroyed.

That's my idea on the subject; a more precise classification of modules.

Edited by Aphoticus, 30 July 2014 - 05:10 AM.

[Koniving]

Gyrok, on 29 July 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

I don't think modules should determine roles. I think the mechs should. But we know that isn't happening.

That said 4 consumable modules is too much. Try 3, 2, 1, 0.
-------------
But in general the idea is standardizing a bit much.
Instead, perhaps focus on the mech's roles in tabletop and use that to determine module slots.

For example the Centurion CN9-AL in double blind rules has an advanced sensor suite that acts as a local area radar while most mechs have only passive sensors. Ain't nothing reflecting that yet. Trebuchets are also in possession of such advanced sensors.

But Hunchbacks, Kintaros, Griffins, and Wolverines do NOT possess these.

Maybe an idea that takes what mechs are supposed to have and thinks of a way to provide the slots to give it to them?
-------------------
For example an Atlas D-DC is just an Atlas D that gave up weapons for a command center (it isn't even supposed to have ECM let alone an extra missile port). So here's an idea. Flood that little pest with consumable modules and not much in weapon modules, and in fact do NOT give it mech modules at all.
Instead, give the Atlas D slightly more weapon modules and normal mech modules. Same with the Atlas RS.

Now look at the Atlas K. Unlike the D, D-DC mod, or the RS... the Atlas K was the epitome of high end technology at the time. It's a long range fire support mech that is intended to be relatively close to and supporting LRM mechs as both a body guard and a long range engagement mech. What does a good combat support mech need? Mech modules. Sure it could use consumables but it hasn't got much room or need for them as that's what the Command Atlas is for. Instead, the Atlas K should be sporting weapon enhancements and sensor suite mech modules up the wazoo!

In tabletop, for nearly the same price of TWO Atlas D-DCs you could buy an Atlas K. That's how much more valuable a K was supposed to be. But while the other Atlases had their hardpoints fluffed, the K did not. While the K should have got the ECM instead of the D-DC, it did not. And now in the mech modules, the K is still the most expensive cbill mech in the Inner Sphere... but nothing reflects it as the high end of Inner Sphere technology. Nor does anything reflect its intended role.
-----
So, in closing with that example I'm using the variants to decide their actual roles... The Atlas D and RS are standard Atlases and thus should have standardized module slots. The Atlas D-DC is a command mech that sacrificed weapons in order to have a commander ride along and the mech should reflect this in its modules with limited mech and weapon modules if any at all, and a number of consumable ones. This inadvertently but intentionally helps to nerf the D-DC so it's not "the only goto Atlas in existence." Finally, the Atlas K which was supposed to be the highest tech of the Atlases, gets an unusually large number of mech and weapon modules but maybe only 1 consumable module slot.
------
Just my thoughts.

Edited by Koniving, 31 July 2014 - 01:06 PM.

[Cest7]

Too broad. Modules need to be variant specific.

[Gyrok]

Cest7, on 01 August 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

Too broad. Modules need to be variant specific.

As I said, there could be variant quirks that make specific chassis have more or less of a certain kind. That is just a general baseline for an average mech in the weight class. For example, a Centurion would likely end up with baseline numbers, while you might dial back the slots on the Shawks...