426 replies to this topic

[Shogun459]

If PGI adds clan weapons modules there will be screams to nerf CLAN Weapons ranges and everything else that makes a Clan mech different from the IS Mechs. Module improvements seem to be built into the Clan mechs already and adding modules for them is OP and you know it.

It ain't broke stop trying to 'FIX' it.

[Unleashed3k]

They really should do more Mech-slots and less weaponslots, i have zoom, seismic and radar depr. mounted on my mech and as far as i understand the vlog all these modules seem to be mech-modules, so i could only use 1 or 2 of these and have to equip some other ****. PGI please rethink the amount, everything else really sounds promising, but i got tons of mechmodules, bought several seismics, radar and zoom modules so i never have to search and switch, now i cant even use them all? with every good news you also bring us some stupid ****, clanweapons except c-gauss/c-erppc dont need range/heat buffs from modules.. It was already **** that clanmechs always only have 3 Slots (mastered) while the main IS mechs have 4 (DDC for example).

[Cavendish]

hargneux, on 12 July 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

I'm slightly disappointed to hear that Clan mechs are receiving weapons modules. I thought it was kind of cool that PGI was holding back on letting people buff Clan weapons any further.

But since the broad sweeping statement of a number of posters on these forums is that weapon modules sucks and are worthless, why does it matter? Either they are decent modules, and PGI has to take care to implement clan weapon modules that are not carbon copies of the IS versions but rather reflect the clan side of things (cut range, decrease heat maybe?) or the modules are really as bad as most people state and it will be worthless to put them on regardless.

I think that the reason for the view of weapon modules being junk right now is that they compete with Radar Deprivation, Zoom, Target Information Gathering and such for the few module slots we have (and rightly so, there is no contest between Radar Deprivation and extending your medium lasers with a laughable short range at the cost of heat).

Personaly I am looking forward to my AMS range 2 module for my Kit Fox which I will use regardless of system.

[F R A N C I S]

Great news that they are doing devlogs again... good to hear lots happening.

Just a couple thoughts regarding modules..
why can't they make it so it's easier to re-equip modules? or have you select modules on load-in and remember for each mech?
I can't see any reason why to force us to have to find a module, remove it, and to re-equip again... and again... I don't bother at all with them. I'm not buying the "MMO needs grind element" with regard to this... because it's not like you can go and re-equip... plus there's plenty of grind happening just getting enough $M C-bills to purchase mechs.

Also, if they want more role-warfare, perhaps allow role type modules... so still allow 1-3 weapon modules.
But also have the following, with different chassis having a different combination, or allow only 1-2:
- defensive mech module slot (radar deprivation etc)
- offensive mech module slot (Capture Accelerator, target retention etc)
- support mech module slot (AMS overdrive etc)
- piloting mech module slot (hill climb etc)

Even have specific role modules "Trees"
So if you select Support, you will only have access to:
Better sensor range, AMS overdrive, Artillery

Striker
Weapons modules (that actually do something, not add 10m of range) e.g. every shot fired after heat goes below 25% does extra 10% damage.

Brawler
Target retention, hill climb, a module that allows faster torso twisting etc

Mastery should allow you to choose which slot type... not just a weapons one. Weapon slots do not really help define role warfare at all in my opinion, but mech slots would.
All I can see with additional weapons slots, is more artillery? which is only really useful in competitive matches where the c-bills spent are cost effective. Unless of course they buff the weapons modules...

but anyway, plenty coming up to adapt to! looking forwards to the new maps too!

[Livewyr]

Good things all around- (Maps, JJs, etc..)

Though I am concerned about the module slots:
Slot division: Good. (Although 2 consumable slots nearly guarantees even more Arty/Air Strikes.)
Master Slot being Weapon: Bad. (If anything, it should be a Mech slot, or an "any.")

[Galenit]

116th NorskaFresh, on 12 July 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

Also love to land in a dropship. But i guess the problem with that is that dropships have weapons.

Aussault?
Destroy the enemy dropship and defend you own?

No standing in a square anymore?
No turrents build in the nowhere but a heavy armed and armored dropship to destroy?

Sounds like more fun then the assault we have now ...

[Ovion]

IMO it should be:
Currently has 1 Module slot: 1 Mech, 1 Weapon, 1 Consumable.
Currently has 2 Module slots: 2 Mech, 2 Weapon, 1 Consumable.
Currently has 3 Module slots: 3 Mech, 3 Weapon, 1 Consumable.
Master Slot should really be 'Omni' as is now.

This means you still get the Mech slots as now, Weapon Modules gain some realistic usage, and you have to choose your consumable carefully. (with pos 2 at Master.)

[van Uber]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 July 2014 - 02:49 AM, said:

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.

This deserves to be quoted again.

I get the impression that PGI is going the "minimum viable product" way and it is kind of worrying. Simple and easy implementations take precedence over complex and more interesting solutions.

Case in point: The IS Command module became a lesser version of a Clan Targeting Comp, when it had potential to be something more assymetrical, ie a team boosting piece of equipment. And now we have the new Module system. Instead of making every Mech the same, make them more diverse! Don't stop with Asmudius Hengs suggestion, go further! Quirks should not be just about torso twists or speed, it should be more like EVE-Online where ships have individual bonuses. For example Atlas should have tougher armor, Awesome should have exceptions to Ghost Heat for energy weapons, Hunchback should be allowed to carry a AC20 (as opposed to other mediums or lights). The list can go on and on.

But instead we get more and more mechanics that function the same way for everybody.

It worries me, because usually when devs touch a subject, the consider it "fixed", especially if it "works" and does not upset the balance. And it means it will not be revisited for a long, long time.

Please, if you DO redesign features, don't be afraid of going the extra mile. Doing a half measure is pretty much as not doing it at all in the players eyes.

Edited by van Uber, 13 July 2014 - 04:29 AM.

[Javin]

The Master Module should be a player select. After I spend all that time and dedication and get three mechs I should be able to choose my final module.

[Sky Hawk]

It could be, that I missed again something, but:

1. Nikolai said not, that we CAN fight after ReCon, just that we could EARN the rewards..

2. OK, if I must, I use Weapon Modules, but I can't find nowhere the "LRM Range" and the "ERLL Range" Modules. Because, I use that two weapons mostly as main weapons (over 90% of my Mechs), I need only that two. (Least, I am happy, that I never had enough money for the Target Decay Modules, to my LRM-Boats.. would be now, just waste of CB.. So the only Module stay, the Advanced Zoom in the future too..)

3. I always feared a bit in the past, that I drop on an Arty/AirS one of my teammates back, so I didn't use them still now.. (Ye, I hit many times the wrong buttons... too often..) But from now, least every of my teammates could drop it back on me, in that case... Because, from now an, practical everyone must use it, if they will not go to battle "naked"... Or not?

4. I didn't heard, when will "that" patch come out.. or any real date... or I missed it... again?

[Khobai]

Modules need to be divided into more categories. There should be consumables, weapon, defense, mobility, sensor/targeting, and universal slots which can equip any module (would be rare and mostly seen on medium mechs and underdog mechs).

And not every mech should be able to equip modules from every category. So for example most assault mechs shouldnt be able to use mobility modules. while most lights shouldnt be able to use defense modules. and mediums should get the most universal slots because mediums should be the most versatile mechs.

[Daehoth]

van Uber, on 13 July 2014 - 04:27 AM, said:

This deserves to be quoted again. I get the impression that PGI is going the "minimum viable product" way and it is kind of worrying. Simple and easy implementations take precedence over complex and more interesting solutions. Case in point: The IS Command module became a lesser version of a Clan Targeting Comp, when it had potential to be something more assymetrical, ie a team boosting piece of equipment. And now we have the new Module system. Instead of making every Mech the same, make them more diverse! Don't stop with Asmudius Hengs suggestion, go further! Quirks should not be just about torso twists or speed, it should be more like EVE-Online where ships have individual bonuses. For example Atlas should have tougher armor, Awesome should have exceptions to Ghost Heat for energy weapons, Hunchback should be allowed to carry a AC20 (as opposed to other mediums or lights). The list can go on and on. But instead we get more and more mechanics that function the same way for everybody. It worries me, because usually when devs touch a subject, the consider it "fixed", especially if it "works" and does not upset the balance. And it means it will not be revisited for a long, long time. Please, if you DO redesign features, don't be afraid of going the extra mile. Doing a half measure is pretty much as not doing it at all in the players eyes.

Right on!
Do NOT take the easy way out! No one appreciates that sort of behaviour, not from any great game maker and certainly not from the wise and mighty PGI.

[Name140704]

Javin, on 13 July 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

The Master Module should be a player select. After I spend all that time and dedication and get three mechs I should be able to choose my final module.

I couldn't agree more. From what I garnered in that Vlog, My Atlas's 4 module slots will be relegated to categories that anyone who ever mastered an Atlas will find a bit disappointing.

[Khobai]

well if modules were subdivided up into further categories (defense, mobility, etc...) then one would expect the atlas to have a good number of defense modules. so it might look like this:

2 consumable, 1 weapon, 2 defense, 1 sensor/targeting


while the stalker, which is more offensive focused, might look like this:

2 consumable, 2 weapon, 1 defense, 1 sensor/targeting


mastery would give you an extra universal slot.

Edited by Khobai, 13 July 2014 - 03:23 PM.

[shotokan5]

I was actually pleased with what I heard. That is a first for me so I have a strange feeling in my head. The
next patch which was not discussed is also very exciting.

I have to go wash my hands now this is strange.

[Bigbacon]

so I'm liking the idea of more categories.

especially on the consumables since it seems one of the biggest gripes right now is the 2 consumables which will lead to more arty/air on everyone.

give mechs 2 consumables, make offensive (Arty)/Air and defensive (UAV/coolshot) consumables, you get 1 of each.

Master slot NEEDS to be an omni slot. That is the incentive to get 3 of a chassis and master them.

All they need to do is rework the IS weapon modules to make them more useful while not making them overly powered and hope to god they don't make the clan weapon modules somethng to make those weapon even better (like lowering durations)
Hell, just upping the ranges would be a GREAT start... even giving a flat 30-50m on everything would be huge especially since clan weapons greatly out match IS weapons in the range department already.

i don't think the clans need weapon modules right now or at least not until the IS modules get reworked.

they also need to fix SLI and DX11....I would be such a happy camper if they did.

Edited by Bigbacon, 13 July 2014 - 06:20 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Shogun459, on 13 July 2014 - 01:28 AM, said:

If PGI adds clan weapons modules there will be screams to nerf CLAN Weapons ranges and everything else that makes a Clan mech different from the IS Mechs. Module improvements seem to be built into the Clan mechs already and adding modules for them is OP and you know it.

It ain't broke stop trying to 'FIX' it.

You haven't really thought this through yet, have you?

Range extension modules grant a bonus usable only sometimes (when your target is further away than your optimal range), but create a penalty all the time.

Range booster mods on Clan weapons would be stupid in most cases. They already have enough range to be able to fire across the ranges we actually engage in for most maps, so taking this modules would make their ranges longer uselessly but flat-out reduce the damage output the mech is capable of due to increased heat.

Strong modules for Clan weapons would be -range -heat modules, as they have range to spare but heat limits everyone.

[Revolv0]

Great Devlog, many of the ideas proposed were encouraging for the game and its future.

However, I think changing the module system is a step in the wrong direction. The idea that everyone can carry artillery and air strikes seems like the dynamic of the game will change. I understand now, in the systems current state that if you take any mastered mech, it can carry both. You have made the decision that those consumables are more important than having seismic or what have you, and that is fine.

My particular play style has me not using any weapon mods. In my opinion, they do not warrant their selection over seismic or advanced zoom (for example). Maybe have them cost less C-Bills, or have the weapon modules provide more bonus's than their current state.

Lastly, the grinding it requires to MASTER a mech should not reward the player with an additional weapon module slot. If anything, allow for customization. Once the mastery additional slot has been installed, allow the player a one time selection where they want to place that additional slot, either consumable or weapon or mech. This suggestion would best fit the new module system PGI wants to implement, while keeping all the fans of the old system happy.

P.S. Make weapon modules for ballistics that allow their damage to go past double their maximum optimal range. Basically, a module that un-nerfs ballistics to how they were before.

P.S.S. Dont take away my D-DC's 4 modules advantage! (Please) :-P

[Mawai]

The revised module system is clearly a nerf from my perspective ... and as such I am biased towards not liking it.

The base module layout was 2 weapon, 2 consumable and 1 mech.

1) I don't use weapon modules since they are generally useless
2) I don't usually use any consumables due to costs ... I try to maximize income when grinding
3) This leaves generally one "mech" module slot for most mechs (details were lacking in the video) but he did mention one.
4) Mastering a mech could give an additional weapon module slot.

This is a significant nerf for me since I generally use 3 mech modules in all my builds.

If mech modules were overpowering or provided some significant advantage then I would probably be in favour of such a system since it would place a limit on the more "powerful" mech modules. However, this is NOT the case at the moment. Modules provide generally negligible boosts (with the exception of the zoom module which is build specific). I ran several matches yesterday without modules simply because I couldn't be bothered to find the modules on the other mechs where they were equipped.

In fact, the artillery, air strike and UAV modules are arguably the most effective modules ... and they are INCREASING the ability of mechs to fit these modules without sacrificing the use of other modules. Everyone who want to spend the cbills will now be able to fit both an artillery and air strike as well as their favorite mech module (and a couple of weapon modules if they desire).

Anyway, the design as planned seems broken since the mech modules just aren't that powerful to require limiting while the consumable modules are more powerful and are receiving reduced limits.

[Felio]

Cimarb, on 12 July 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

In there defense, we do not know what the initial amount is for a specific mech. If they adjust those thrust values to first overcome the weight of the mech, it could be a very good system. Essentially, the "zero" line is adjusted up the graph based upon tonnage.

It would more likely be tied to the class of jump jet, but I hope you are right. That would make sense.